Hong Kong's encryption ETF faces a cold reception, while the US may welcome a wave of Ethereum ETFs.

Recently, the news that the Ethereum Spot ETF may be approved in the United States has sparked widespread discussion, driving the price of Ether to rise significantly by about 20%. However, this phenomenon stands in stark contrast to the Hong Kong market.

In fact, Hong Kong approved the Ethereum Spot ETF as early as last month, but it had almost no impact on the price of Ethereum at that time. Even against the backdrop of the surge in Ethereum prices, the net inflow of Ethereum Spot ETFs from three institutions in Hong Kong yesterday was only 62.8, which was disappointing.

This situation is not an isolated case. Since its launch, the Ethereum ETF in Hong Kong has been performing mediocrely. Aside from some inflow on the first day, subsequent trading seems mainly aimed at maintaining trading volume. The Bitcoin ETF is also facing a similar predicament, with only about 3,000 Bitcoins in net inflow on the first day, and the trading in the following days also appears to lack vitality.

In contrast, the trading volume of the Bitcoin Spot ETF in the US is about 1000 times higher than that in Hong Kong, a gap that far exceeds the 40 times difference in overall trading volume between Hong Kong and US stocks.

It is worth noting that currently, investors in mainland China, regardless of whether they have opened a Hong Kong stock account or have access to the North-South trading, are unable to purchase cryptocurrency-related financial products in Hong Kong. This means that, aside from investors in mainland China, compliant institutions in Hong Kong may find it difficult to attract other investors.

Several large public fund companies offering Bitcoin and Ethereum Spot ETFs in the Hong Kong market include Bosera, Harvest, and China Asset Management. Although these are well-known large funds, the performance of their cryptocurrency ETF products is still unsatisfactory.

Not only are the trading volumes of these Spot ETFs sluggish, but the exchanges that previously obtained compliant licenses in Hong Kong also have a limited contribution to cryptocurrency liquidity under the current market conditions.

Overall, the cryptocurrency-friendly policies implemented in Hong Kong seem to have failed to achieve the expected results, appearing somewhat awkward, as if it were a game of self-entertainment. This situation highlights the challenges Hong Kong faces in developing its cryptocurrency market and reflects the regional differences in the global cryptocurrency market and the profound impact of regulatory policies on market development.