Summary HODL is a VanEck ETF that offers a solution to participate in the performance of Bitcoin. It has distinguished itself for its marketing move at launch, which provides a total discount on sponsor fees in this initial phase. But even considering full-regime expenses, it remains, in my opinion, a competitive ETF on the market compared to peers. Its inclusion in a portfolio follows the same logic as the inclusion of Bitcoin, which, in my opinion, should be considered a high-beta instrument of the Nasdaq index. The real core of the matter lies in understanding whether or not it is convenient to take a position in this phase of relatively expensive valuation. Over time, the range of choice among Bitcoin ETFs has expanded, but even today, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF ( HODL ) still seems to stand out from the crowd, and let’s be honest, also because of the impactful discount on fees related to the initial trading phase. Looking ahead, however, it has the characteristics, in my humble opinion, to remain competitive even at a full commission regime. What could instead lose a bit of competitiveness compared to past years, in my opinion, today is the average annual return of Bitcoin. I think that, if we consider HODL, a high-beta instrument of the Nasdaq (as recent evidence shows), and if we consider that the latter index has a relatively expensive valuation, the convenience of taking a position (at these prices) on this instrument today is reduced. Personally, I embrace a long-term view on HODL's underlying Bitcoin. But if this asset is considered as a high-beta, it means that it makes sense to accumulate it in depressive phases or in the early stages of expansionary ones, while simply “holding it” in the higher phases of an expansionary cycle. Now I will explain my opinion. To know HODL is a physical ETF , therefore not a derivative, that reflects the performance of Bitcoin, minus VanEck’s operating management expenses. Regarding the expenses, we are going through an initial promotional phase for VanEck, and it seems that until 2026, there is an ongoing $2.5 billion fee waiver that has made it competitive on the market. HODL - profile (Seeking Alpha) Afterward, there is talk of a 0.20% sponsor fee that will be withdrawn directly in Bitcoin. A typical element, and it is worth remembering that the monthly withdrawal will have a negative impact on the NAV compared to the on-chain price of the underlying, especially if one believes in a continued upward trend at this growth pace for Bitcoin: the bitcoins paid today will have a higher opportunity cost tomorrow. BTC-USD (Author (SA-YCharts)) This remains an element that characterizes ETFs, which is why it is important, in my opinion, especially for those who have a “Buy & hold” plan ( as VanEck itself suggests ), to select the reference ETF well based on the TER and the type of custody. HODL - BTC/USD - IBIT: price return (Seeking Alpha) Moving to the second point, we are talking about the custody service of Gemini Trust Company, LLC, and of an Additional Custodian by Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC. This means that the addresses used by Gemini are public and verifiable on the blockchain, allowing on-chain transparency (a unique point among spot ETFs), an essential element. Peer So, once the measurement criteria are identified, all that remains is to measure. Among peers, more and more competitors are emerging with the institutionalization of the blockchain. HODL - Peer (Seeking Alpha) But HODL, thanks to the promotional fee plan, remains competitive today naturally. Considering a potential 0.20% fee, it would still remain a convenient solution in my opinion, in this list, second to BTC, another one of my picks in terms of Bitcoin ETFs ( I talked about it here ). Looking at the performance to date, the resolution of the debate has a clear outcome: HODL peers: performance (YoY) (Seeking Alpha) Simply, other measures, such as the bid/ask spread, should not be underestimated in this sense, but I bet you already know that. In HODL, it is minimal, at 0.03%. My opinion on Bitcoin Today more than ever, i n my opinion, one feels the weight of the increasingly strong closeness between an instrument born decentralized like Bitcoin and the Nasdaq 100 index, summarized with QQQ. Some models estimate a correlation close to 80% . Others like to define Bitcoin as a high-beta instrument. And personally, I recognize some truth in all these statements. To get closer to what I believe it means to have Bitcoin in a portfolio, I bring you this graphic representation of mine: Beta cycle (Author) In my opinion, historical evidence clearly shows how the underlying of HODL, therefore Bitcoin, is susceptible to monetary policy, as a technology stock can be, but in this sense not necessarily like gold. The greatest difference lies in the driver , in fact, they often mislead because they coincide. BTC-USD; GLD price return (Seeking Alpha) It is therefore clear that gold has proven to be a good hedge in the face of geopolitical divergences, QQQ and Bitcoin, assets particularly sensitive to the monetary and/or expansionary cycle. BTC-USD; QQQ price return (Seeking Alpha) Why do I say this? Because then the logic with which it is, in my opinion, inserted into a portfolio changes. If, with the process of institutionalization , Bitcoin will become more and more a "high beta solution" of QQQ, in my opinion, HODL becomes either a method of amplifying gains and losses relative to the U.S. equity markets. BTC-USD (Seeking Alpha) And at an asset management level, in zones of extension (highlighted by a clear technical divergence between the 14-period RSI on the 1D timeframe and the price), taking portfolio positions on high-beta assets might not be extremely convenient. And despite maintaining a long-term bullish positioning approach, today I think the most suitable rating is Hold. Risk The thing that makes me smile the most is that what I just said can be easily dismantled with a question: “what value does Bitcoin have?” I know… it’s the classic comeback of the average banker in 2019, and compared to those concerns we have moved forward. But if Bitcoin is compared to the Nasdaq 100, it remains a legitimate question, however banal it has become over time, right? Because Bitcoin has no fundamentals and does not produce cash flows. Its anchoring to the Nasdaq is a “trading convention”: simply Bitcoin is a commonly accepted instrument into which the mass of liquidity printed by the Fed flows. And what makes it accepted is its “defined supply nature”. This, if we think about it carefully, means that if the market’s approach to Bitcoin changes, even the correlation with the Nasdaq could theoretically disappear. Let’s not forget that the concept of “Bitcoin digital gold” was born following a convergence of movements of gold with Bitcoin in the early phases of mass trading. Why do I include it in the risk section? Because this still leaves a certain aura of unpredictability and little transparency that, honestly, I have always appreciated little, which is why for me Bitcoin has always been a satellite component, even if it has always given me great satisfaction. Conclusion To conclude, I think that HODL is a competitive passive replication instrument of Bitcoin, and theoretically, it could continue to be so even with positive fees. I must admit that although I have maintained extremely bullish tones on Bitcoin until today (read here) and also on ETH (read here), I believe that its closeness to the Nasdaq makes it coherent to share the rating as well, shifting the focus to hold. I naturally invite everyone to read hold as neutrality; in the sense that since HODL is a “high beta” instrument (at this moment), it becomes less and less convenient to buy as the expansionary cycle widens, in my opinion.
