Corporate “crypto treasuries” used to mean one thing: buy Bitcoin and hold. In 2025, the playbook is broader. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are now huge, and spot Ether ETFs launched in mid-2024 with growing flows—giving CFOs and boards regulated exposure without the operational lift of self-custody. But the two assets behave differently, and the accounting, liquidity, and yield mechanics aren’t the same. This guide distills what the data says and how to choose between a Bitcoin treasury, an Ether treasury, or a blend.
The state of play: adoption and access
- Bitcoin’s ETF machine is massive. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) shows >$85B in net assets (as of Sept. 10, 2025), underscoring unmatched secondary-market liquidity for treasury access via a plain-vanilla brokerage account. That scale matters for spreads, creations/redemptions, and audit comfort.
- Ether ETFs are real—and growing. U.S. spot Ether ETFs began trading in July 2024, with $1.07B of first-day turnover and $106M of net inflows on day one. By mid-2025, Morningstar tallied multi-billion-dollar monthly flows into Ether funds (and hefty Bitcoin flows the same month), suggesting both assets have durable institutional demand through ETF wrappers.
- Direct treasuries still skew to Bitcoin. The company formerly known as MicroStrategy—now Strategy Inc.—continues to set the benchmark with an industry-leading BTC hoard and an explicit identity as a “Bitcoin Treasury Company,” after its 2025 rebrand. Public trackers and press releases confirm holdings and the formal name change.
Takeaway: For pure liquidity and mainstream adoption, Bitcoin still leads. Ether is catching up quickly via ETFs, but corporate balance sheets directly holding large ETH positions remain rarer than BTC.
Accounting & audit: fewer headaches than before
The biggest friction in early corporate crypto programs was accounting. That changed with FASB’s ASU 2023-08, which moved qualifying crypto assets to fair-value through earnings for fiscal years beginning after Dec. 15, 2024 (i.e., 2025 for many companies). That reduces impairment-only asymmetry and clarifies presentation and disclosure—critical for auditors and boards. ETFs, of course, are already accounted for like other financial instruments on most policies.
Implication: Whether you hold BTC or ETH (directly or via ETFs), reporting is cleaner in 2025 than it was—a tailwind for both strategies.
Yield & utility: the ETH “staking” question
- ETH’s native yield (staking) is a core attraction for on-chain treasuries. However, U.S. spot Ether ETFs currently do not stake, and the SEC has punted decisions on applications that would allow staking in certain products. A company that wants staking yield generally must hold ETH directly (with custody, validator, and compliance overhead).
- BTC’s “yield” is synthetic. Bitcoin doesn’t have protocol yield. Treasurers sometimes source returns via cash-and-carry or over-collateralized lending, but those carry counterparty and market risks that many board policies disallow. There is no native staking equivalent.
Implication: If yield from the base asset is central to your thesis, ETH (direct, staked) is the only route—accepting higher operational complexity. If you want simplest exposure with minimal moving parts, BTC via ETF remains the easiest operational choice.
Liquidity & market structure
- Depth and flows: Bitcoin ETFs dwarf others and offer deep primary/secondary liquidity; Ether ETFs have grown quickly but remain smaller in absolute terms. In July 2025, Morningstar reported $6.3B into Bitcoin ETFs and $5.5B into Ethereum ETFs—both significant, but with BTC still the larger base.
- First-day Ether trading was robust (>$1B of turnover across issuers), signaling healthy market-maker participation even if price action didn’t mirror Bitcoin’s 2024 debut fireworks.
Implication: For large, time-sensitive allocations, BTC ETFs offer the widest and most battle-tested pipes; ETH ETFs are viable but may be more sensitive to timing and spreads in volatile windows.
Regulatory posture & product design
- The SEC approved Ether ETF listings (19b-4s) in May 2024, enabling the July 2024 launches. But it has not broadly permitted staking in those ETFs and continues to scrutinize altcoin products—so ETH ETF exposure today is spot-tracking only, not staking-enhanced.
- Bitcoin ETF approval logic leaned on surveillance of the CME futures market and correlation with spot, plus robust SSA arrangements; that infrastructure and legal theory are most mature for BTC, then ETH.
Implication: From a policy-risk angle, BTC still feels “cleanest,” with ETH close behind via spot ETFs (but no staking inside the wrapper, for now).
Volatility, correlation & portfolio role
Both assets remain highly volatile versus fiat cash or short-term bills. Bitcoin often serves as “digital gold” in treasury narratives—simple, liquid, store-of-value framing. Ether offers smart-contract platform exposure and, if held directly, staking income—but it can be more tech-cycle sensitive (DeFi/NFT cycles, L2 activity). For many treasuries, the pragmatic answer is segmentation:
- Core position: BTC (via ETF or custodied spot) for liquidity + simplicity.
- Satellite position: ETH for growth + optional staking (if your policy permits direct holding).
ETF flow data and corporate disclosures show this pattern in practice: BTC dominates treasury-style allocations; ETHdemand is rising via ETFs among institutions that can’t or won’t self-custody.
A practical decision framework for CFOs
1) Define the job-to-be-done.
- Treasury reserve / liquidity buffer? Favor BTC ETF (lowest operational lift).
- Strategic tech bet with income? Consider ETH (direct, staked) with institutional custody, or ETH ETF if you want wrapper simplicity (no staking).
2) Choose the wrapper.
- ETF: Brokerage custody, clean ops, easy rebalancing. IBIT’s scale is a major advantage; iShares ETH products (e.g., ETHA) provide ETH beta without staking.
- Direct spot: Needed for staking (ETH) or specific security/custody controls; requires policy, wallet, and vendor diligence.
3) Update your policy stack.
Incorporate FASB fair-value accounting, price bands for execution, position limits, counterparty criteria, and stress-testing. (Your auditor will expect to see this.)
4) Execution plan.
- Phased buys (dollar-cost averaging) reduce timing risk.
- Use multiple authorized participants/market makers for ETF blocks, or tier-one custodians for spot.
- Document trade rationale and controls for the board packet.
5) Reporting & comms.
Disclose holdings clearly in MD&A and investor decks; many treasuries use public trackers and IR posts to pre-empt questions (see Strategy Inc. as the canonical example).
What the scoreboard says—today
- Winning on breadth & liquidity: Bitcoin treasury strategy (ETF or spot) still wins on scale, market access, and policy maturity. IBIT’s AUM and the size of BTC flows are the tell.
- Catching up with differentiated utility: Ether treasury strategy is winning mindshare where staking/yield or smart-contract alignment is part of the thesis, but U.S. ETFs don’t stake, so many corporates use ETH as a satellite allocation unless they commit to direct custody.
The Conclusion
If you must pick one in 2025, Bitcoin is the default for corporate treasuries—simpler wrapper, deeper liquidity, clearer precedent. If you can run a two-asset policy, a BTC core + ETH satellite gives you the best of both worlds: liquidity and narrative (BTC) plus platform upside and optional yield (ETH). Keep an eye on SEC decisions about staking in ETFs; if that door opens, the ETH case inside wrappers will strengthen further.