US Bitcoin and Ether Funds Draw $190.7 Million and $66.1 Million

Key Facts

US spot Bitcoin BTC funds attracted a net $190.7 million on September 24, 2026, while spot Ether ETH funds drew $66.1 million, according to Farside Investors. Both groups remained in positive territory, although each took in less than in the preceding session. The figures measure net money entering listed funds during a defined US trading session, rather than changes in either token's price. They therefore offer a reading of demand for investment products distinct from spot-market performance. Keeping those measures separate helps investors judge whether purchases of BTC and ETH fund shares coincide with movements in the underlying markets or follow a different pace.

BTC funds recorded $346.9 million of net inflows on September 23, compared with $190.7 million on September 24, Farside Investors shows. ETH funds drew $104.5 million and $66.1 million in those respective sessions. Money was still entering both groups, but the size of the daily additions declined. A smaller inflow should not be confused with a net withdrawal: the latest readings remained above zero. The comparison defines the change in momentum precisely as continued demand through the funds at a slower daily pace, without implying that the direction of flows had reversed.

BlackRock's IBIT accounted for much of the BTC fund total, drawing $162.6 million on September 24, according to Farside Investors. Fidelity's FBTC added $12.9 million, while BTCW posted a $4.0 million net outflow. Those components show how the $190.7 million group total combines products moving at different speeds and, in one case, in the opposite direction. A positive aggregate does not mean every constituent attracted money in the same session. For investors assessing the durability of demand, the breakdown distinguishes buying spread across products from an advance that depends heavily on a few names.

ETH flows were distributed differently on September 24: ETHA took in $26.8 million, FETH drew $21.5 million and Grayscale's ETH added $17.8 million, Farside Investors reports. Those contributions account for most of the $66.1 million group total. The breakdown shows participation across several products, although their contributions were unequal. Tracking each product in subsequent sessions can reveal whether demand broadens or becomes concentrated. That distinction matters because a positive group figure can combine funds attracting new money with others facing redemptions, leaving the aggregate alone an incomplete picture of investor demand.

Net inflows arise when the value of fund share creations exceeds redemptions over the measurement period. The US Securities and Exchange Commission permits in-kind creations and redemptions for crypto exchange-traded products alongside cash mechanisms. Demand for shares therefore connects to arrangements for settling and holding the underlying asset, but a reported flow is not automatically an equal spot purchase at the instant of publication. A dollar flow is also a different measure from a change in the market price of BTC or ETH. Assessing any price effect requires attention to settlement, trading time and market liquidity rather than assuming a direct and immediate match.

The September 21, 22 and 23 sessions put September 24 in context: BTC funds drew $999.0 million, $714.7 million and $346.9 million, respectively, according to Farside Investors. ETH funds attracted $270.0 million, $162.2 million and $104.5 million on those same dates. Against that sequence, the latest $190.7 million and $66.1 million readings continued a run of positive sessions while extending the slowdown in daily additions. These are comparisons among specified US trading sessions, giving the figures a common time basis. A short sequence alone cannot establish that the pace will keep falling or that demand for fund shares has peaked.

Token prices on September 24 did not mirror the preceding fund inflows with a large daily move. BTC closed at $84,397.60 on September 23 and $84,410.24 on September 24, according to EL7 data. ETH closed at $2,684.71 and then $2,688.05 on those same dates. The changes between the two closes were small beside the dollar amounts entering the fund groups. The comparison illustrates why fund flows and spot prices need separate readings: they describe different parts of the market, and neither necessarily dictates the other's outcome in a single session.

The flows followed the Federal Reserve's September 16 decision to lift its target interest-rate range to 3.75%–4.00%. On September 15, a procedural Senate vote to advance the Clarity Act failed by 49 to 50. Both events form part of the setting for crypto investment decisions, since financing costs and regulatory certainty can affect investors' appetite for risk. Positive fund flows after those events do not show how much either event influenced purchases of shares. Establishing a stronger causal reading would require evidence about investor positioning and the timing of individual investment decisions.

For a holder of BTC or ETH fund shares, the September 24 figures show continuing net demand alongside a slower pace than on September 23. A prospective buyer can learn more about the depth of that demand by watching whether inflows recur across several sessions than by treating one reading as decisive. For a short seller, persistent positive flows may be a countervailing factor without guaranteeing a higher token price. The weight of that signal depends on whether incoming money persists and how widely it is distributed among products. A divergence between fund flows and prices also matters when deciding when to enter a position and how large that position should be.

The September 25 US session will provide the next comparison with September 24 inflows of $190.7 million for BTC funds and $66.1 million for ETH funds. Repeated positive flows across several products would strengthen the demand reading, while a net outflow or narrower participation would weaken it. Any new total should be read alongside the same session's price moves because flows and prices measure different things. Fund-level detail will also show whether BTC flows remain heavily dependent on IBIT and whether ETHA, FETH and Grayscale's ETH continue to contribute. Subsequent sessions can thus test the persistence of demand more reliably than a single day's figure.