比特币 ETF 摊牌：BTCW 不敌 IBIT

这是我为 Seeking Alpha 撰写的“比特币 ETF 摊牌”系列的第二篇文章，其中我分析了不同的比特币 ETF

The VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF (NYSE:BTCW) has underperformed the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (NYSE:IBIT) since both began trading on the New York Stock Exchange last month.

自上个月在纽约证券交易所开始交易以来，VanEck 比特币策略 ETF（纽约证券交易所代码：BTCW）的表现一直逊于 iShares 比特币信托 ETF（纽约证券交易所代码：IBIT）。

Both exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, offer exposure to the price movements of bitcoin, but they differ in terms of structure and fees.

这两种交易所交易基金（ETF）都提供比特币价格变动的风险敞口，但它们在结构和费用方面有所不同。

Here's a closer look at the key differences between BTCW and IBIT:

下面详细介绍了 BTCW 和 IBIT 之间的主要区别：

* **Structure:** BTCW is a Cayman Islands-domiciled ETF that invests in bitcoin futures contracts. IBIT, on the other hand, is a US-based ETF that holds physical bitcoin.

* **结构：** BTCW 是一家在开曼群岛注册的 ETF，投资于比特币期货合约。另一方面，IBIT 是一款持有实物比特币的美国 ETF。

* **Fees:** BTCW has an annual expense ratio of 0.65%, while IBIT's expense ratio is 0.95%.

* **费用：** BTCW 的年费用率为 0.65%，而 IBIT 的费用率为 0.95%。

* **Liquidity:** IBIT is the more liquid of the two ETFs, with an average daily trading volume of over $1 billion. BTCW's average daily trading volume is typically in the range of $100 million to $200 million.

* **流动性：** IBIT 是两个 ETF 中流动性更强的一个，日均交易量超过 10 亿美元。 BTCW 的日均交易量通常在 1 亿至 2 亿美元之间。

* **Tracking error:** BTCW's returns have been more volatile than IBIT's, and the ETF has experienced periods of significant underperformance. IBIT's returns, on the other hand, have been more closely aligned with the price movements of bitcoin.

* **跟踪误差：** BTCW 的回报比 IBIT 的波动更大，并且 ETF 经历了表现严重不佳的时期。另一方面，IBIT 的回报与比特币的价格走势更加密切相关。

* **Correlation to bitcoin:** IBIT's returns have shown a higher correlation to the price movements of bitcoin compared to BTCW. This is likely due to the fact that IBIT holds physical bitcoin, while BTCW invests in futures contracts.

* **与比特币的相关性：** 与 BTCW 相比，IBIT 的回报与比特币价格走势的相关性更高。这可能是因为 IBIT 持有实物比特币，而 BTCW 投资于期货合约。

Overall, while both BTCW and IBIT offer exposure to bitcoin, their different structures, fees, liquidity, and tracking errors make them suitable for different types of investors. Those seeking a more direct and liquid exposure to bitcoin may prefer IBIT, while those looking for a lower-cost and futures-based ETF may consider BTCW.

总体而言，虽然 BTCW 和 IBIT 都提供比特币投资，但它们不同的结构、费用、流动性和跟踪误差使它们适合不同类型的投资者。那些寻求更直接和流动性更强的比特币敞口的人可能更喜欢 IBIT，而那些寻求低成本和基于期货的 ETF 的人可能会考虑 BTCW。