U.S. spot crypto exchange-traded funds returned from the Juneteenth market break with another negative session on June 22, as both Bitcoin and Ether products recorded net outflows. Spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $68.3 million, while spot Ether ETFs saw $66.1 million in withdrawals, bringing combined outflows across the two largest crypto ETF categories to about $134.4 million.
The Bitcoin outflow was led by BlackRock’s IBIT, which lost $172 million, and Grayscale’s GBTC, which recorded $81 million in withdrawals. Those redemptions outweighed inflows into several competing funds. Ark Invest and 21Shares’ ARKB added $64 million, Fidelity’s FBTC gained $57.4 million, Grayscale’s lower-fee BTC product attracted $48.1 million, Morgan Stanley’s MSBT added $8.1 million, Franklin Templeton’s EZBC took in $3.7 million, and WisdomTree’s BTCW added $3.4 million.
Other Bitcoin funds, including Bitwise’s BITB, Invesco’s BTCO, Valkyrie’s BRRR and VanEck’s HODL, recorded no net flow for the session. The mixed fund-level data showed that demand did not disappear entirely, but the heavy outflows from IBIT and GBTC were large enough to keep the overall category negative.
Bitcoin ETFs remain under pressure
The June 22 data extended a weak stretch for spot Bitcoin ETFs. Before the Juneteenth holiday, the funds had lost $90.7 million on June 18, following $82.2 million in outflows on June 17. Although June 16 brought a modest $10.2 million inflow, the broader trend remained negative through the second half of the month.
IBIT’s $172 million outflow was the most important detail of the session. BlackRock’s fund has often acted as the strongest demand engine in the Bitcoin ETF complex, helping offset withdrawals from older or higher-fee products. When IBIT turns sharply negative, the category has fewer stabilizing forces.
GBTC also remained a drag, with another $81 million leaving the fund. The continued pressure suggests investors are still exiting the legacy Grayscale product or rotating into cheaper alternatives. The inflow into Grayscale’s lower-fee BTC product supports that rotation argument, but it was not enough to offset GBTC’s withdrawal.
The broader implication is that Bitcoin ETF demand remains selective. Investors are not abandoning the category entirely, but they are differentiating sharply between issuers, fee structures and liquidity profiles. That makes headline flows more volatile and increases the importance of monitoring fund-level data rather than only total inflows or outflows.
Ether ETFs see concentrated selling
Ether ETFs also posted a weak session, with $66.1 million in net outflows on June 22. Almost the entire withdrawal came from BlackRock’s ETHA, which lost $66.4 million. The only offset was a small $0.3 million inflow into 21Shares’ TETH. All other Ether products, including ETHB, FETH, ETHW, ETHV, QETH, EZET, ETHE and Grayscale’s ETH product, recorded no net flow.
The concentration of the outflow in ETHA is notable because BlackRock’s Ether fund has been one of the most important drivers of daily ETH ETF demand. When ETHA records large withdrawals and other issuers remain flat, the category has little ability to absorb the pressure.
Ether ETF demand has been inconsistent throughout June. The funds have alternated between modest inflows and sharp single-day withdrawals, suggesting that institutional ETH exposure remains less stable than Bitcoin ETF demand. That uneven pattern is important because Ether’s investment case depends not only on price momentum, but also on confidence in staking, stablecoins, tokenization and DeFi activity.
For crypto markets, the June 22 flows send a cautious signal. Bitcoin and Ether ETFs both returned to outflows after the holiday, and the largest funds in each category were the main sources of selling. Until IBIT and ETHA stabilize, regulated crypto fund demand is likely to remain choppy.
The next few sessions will determine whether June 22 was another isolated de-risking day or part of a broader withdrawal trend. For now, the data shows investors are still willing to allocate to selected funds, but not strongly enough to offset large redemptions from the biggest products.
