Related Questions

In the race for dominance in the new world of spot Bitcoin ETFs, two clear titans have emerged: Fidelity and BlackRock. Their respective funds, the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) and the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), have attracted the lion's share of investor capital and media attention. For an investor who has decided that the ETF path is right for them, the choice often comes down to these two giants. While the products are remarkably similar by design, there are a few subtle but important differences that could influence your decision. This guide will break them down for you.

The Deciding Factor for Many: Fees and Expense Ratios

For most long-term investors, cost is a primary concern. Both Fidelity and BlackRock knew this and launched their ETFs with extremely competitive fees. Both funds carry a base expense ratio of 0.25%, which translates to a $25 annual fee for every $10,000 invested. However, to attract initial capital, both also launched with aggressive, temporary fee waivers. It is crucial to check the current status of these waivers, but the key takeaway is that both funds are very closely matched and are among the lowest-cost options available for gaining Bitcoin exposure in a brokerage account.

Behind the Scenes: Custody of the Actual Bitcoin

A critical, though often overlooked, difference lies in how each fund secures its underlying asset. Fidelity utilizes its own in-house, proprietary custody solution, Fidelity Digital Assets. This represents a vertically integrated approach where the same trusted company that manages the fund also physically secures the Bitcoin. BlackRock, on the other hand, has partnered with Coinbase Custody, a subsidiary of the well-known crypto exchange, to act as the custodian for IBIT's Bitcoin holdings. Your choice here comes down to a matter of trust: do you prefer the self-contained ecosystem of a traditional finance giant, or do you trust a crypto-native specialist to secure the assets?

Market Adoption and Fund Size

Since their launch, both FBTC and IBIT have been incredibly successful, accumulating billions of dollars in assets under management (AUM). This high level of AUM is a positive sign for investors in either fund, as it ensures deep liquidity and very tight trading spreads, meaning you can buy and sell shares easily at a fair market price. While both are leaders, IBIT has generally maintained a lead in total inflows, making it the largest of the new spot Bitcoin ETFs. However, both are more than liquid enough for any retail investor's needs.

The Verdict: How to Choose Between FBTC and IBIT

The truth is that for the average investor, the differences between FBTC and IBIT are minimal. Both are offered by world-class asset managers, both have very low fees, and both will track the price of Bitcoin with near-perfect accuracy. The decision will likely come down to your personal preferences. Do you already have a brokerage account with Fidelity, making FBTC the more convenient choice? Do you have a preference for Fidelity's in-house custody model versus BlackRock's partnership with Coinbase? Ultimately, you cannot make a "wrong" choice between these two. The more fundamental decision is choosing the ETF structure itself, as detailed in our guide: [Bitcoin ETF vs. Buying Directly: Which Is Right for You?].

Whether you choose the ETF path or the path of direct ownership, making an informed decision is the key to a sound investment strategy.

With ETF holdings topping 800k BTC, are we looking at more institutional influence in Bitcoin’s next move?

The grand, world-changing narrative of Bitcoin has always been one of decentralization and individual sovereignty—a network that operates beyond the reach of any single government or gatekeeper. But what happens when the rubber meets the road?

When the abstract ideal of a borderless monetary system manifests as a deafening, 24/7 industrial operation at the end of your quiet, rural street? This is the real, gritty, and often overlooked battleground where the future of crypto is being decided, not on charts, but in town halls and courtrooms.

The recent ruling in Texas, where a local community saw its attempt to regulate a Bitcoin mining operation struck down by state law, isn't just a local news blip. It's a canonical example of a brutal clash of ideologies.

On one side, you have the residents, the  community,  armed with nothing but their desire for peace, quiet, and control over their immediate environment. They see the mine as a nuisance—a gluttonous consumer of their power, a blight on their landscape, and a disruption to their way of life.

Their arguments are human, emotional, and deeply local.

On the other side, you have the cold, hard text of state legislation, specifically designed to protect large-scale commercial operations like Bitcoin mining from exactly this kind of local intervention. This isn't an accident; it's policy. The state of Texas has openly courted Bitcoin miners, framing them as a boon to the grid and a pillar of economic development. The law, in this case, is not a neutral arbiter; it is a weapon, wielded to ensure that a broader, state-level strategic interest overrides the parochial concerns of a few citizens.

So, what does this tell us? Is this a victory for progress, proving that disruptive technologies must sometimes bypass local resistance to flourish? Or is it a chilling precedent, a sign that the "decentralized" future we're building may, in fact, be centralized under a different name—one where corporate and state interests align to silence the very people the technology claims to empower?