Solana ETFs Are Coming: A Deep Dive Into What This Means for the Ecosystem

The cryptocurrency industry stands at a pivotal moment as the Securities and Exchange Commission actively engages with prospective Solana ETF issuers, signaling that approval could come as early as late June or July 2025. This development represents a watershed moment for Solana, potentially opening the floodgates to institutional capital that has previously been restricted to Bitcoin and Ethereum exposure. In a recent episode of Lightspeed, host Jack spoke with Carlos Gonzalez Campo, a research analyst and former employee of 21shares, one of Europe's largest crypto ETP issuers, to break down what these filings mean for SOL in 2025 and beyond.

Top Projects

Lulo

Score: 7,586.13

Bonk

Score: 4,806.12

Sphere

Score: 2,544.42

Moonwalk

Score: 2,026.11

The conversation extended far beyond ETF mechanics, touching on the ongoing debate between central limit order books and automated market makers, whether Pump.fun should compete with Hyperliquid, and the implications of Circle's blockbuster IPO for the stablecoin sector. What emerged was a nuanced picture of an ecosystem at an inflection point, where traditional finance infrastructure is beginning to merge with decentralized applications in ways that could fundamentally reshape how capital flows into digital assets.

The SEC's Active Engagement With Solana ETFs

The most significant news from the week centers on the SEC's request for prospective Solana ETF issuers to file amended S-1 forms. These registration statements are essential documents for any product seeking to trade on regulated exchanges, and the SEC's direct engagement signals a serious intent to move forward with approvals. According to reporting by Jack and his colleague Catherine Ross at Blockworks, the regulatory body has specifically asked issuers to include language about how they would handle in-kind redemptions, which represents standard boilerplate requirements.

What makes this development particularly noteworthy is that the SEC has also requested that issuers explain how they plan to implement staking within their funds. This represents a departure from the approach taken with Ethereum ETFs, which were approved without staking functionality. The inclusion of staking discussions suggests the SEC is at least open to allowing this feature, though final approval would depend on how issuers structure their proposals.

The Bloomberg ETF analysts have predicted July for Solana ETF approval, lending credibility to the accelerated timeline. Carlos expressed optimism about this development, noting that "ETFs will be like the first way they can actually get exposure to sold the asset" for institutional investors like family offices and hedge funds that cannot participate directly in DeFi or use traditional crypto exchanges.

Why Staking Makes Solana ETFs Potentially More Attractive Than Ethereum

The possibility of staking-enabled Solana ETFs creates a fundamentally different investment proposition than what Ethereum ETFs currently offer. Solana's staking mechanism provides approximately 4% real yield according to Blockworks measurements, which would be forfeited entirely if investors purchased non-staking ETF products. More importantly, non-staked positions are diluted by inflation, making the staking feature not merely attractive but essential for optimal returns.

Carlos provided valuable perspective from his experience at 21shares, explaining that traditional investors view Solana's inflation-based staking rewards favorably: "Inflation is not like this bad thing, but it actually adds predictability to the yield. And a lot of traditional investors describe it as like a stock but that's also like a bond, this hybrid." This predictability in yield differentiates Solana from more volatile return profiles and could attract investors seeking steady income alongside potential capital appreciation.

The real yield from staking, combined with the predictable nature of Solana's inflation curve, creates what Carlos described as a hybrid instrument that appeals to traditional finance sensibilities. This characteristic could prove instrumental in driving adoption among institutional allocators who need to justify their positions to boards and stakeholders.

European Success as a Predictor for US Markets

Europe provides an important case study for how Solana ETFs might perform in the United States. Carlos shared that at 21shares, the Solana ETP is actually the largest product by assets under management, surpassing even the Bitcoin ETP with almost a billion dollars in AUM. This remarkable achievement demonstrates genuine institutional appetite for Solana exposure when proper regulatory vehicles exist.

"A lot of it is path dependency," Carlos explained, noting that significant inflows occurred when SOL was trading below $80 or $100, with those positions compounding dramatically as the asset repriced upward throughout 2024. While he acknowledged that replicating this exact pattern in US markets might prove difficult, the European success "definitely signals demand from more institutional investors."

The 21shares Solana ETP ranking among the top five European crypto products, including Bitcoin offerings, provides compelling evidence that Solana can attract meaningful capital flows given the right investment vehicles. This precedent should give prospective issuers confidence in the commercial viability of US-listed Solana ETFs.

The Case for Liquid Staking Derivatives in ETF Structures

One of the most technically nuanced aspects of the ETF discussion involves whether regulators will approve liquid staking solutions like Jito SOL as the underlying mechanism for staking-enabled funds. Carlos made a compelling case for why this matters: operational efficiency directly impacts investor returns.

"If you approve staking but don't approve a liquid staking derivative like Jito SOL, it adds a lot of operational complexity," Carlos explained. Without liquid staking, ETF managers cannot stake their entire holdings because they must maintain sufficient liquidity to fulfill daily redemptions. This constraint means only a portion of assets—perhaps 50%—can actually be staked, with the remainder sitting idle.

Jito has been publicly engaging with the SEC, arguing that Jito SOL is not a security. Their position rests on the tip router mechanism, which autonomously distributes yield without a centralized entity making allocation decisions. This structural feature, combined with tax efficiency arguments about rewards being baked into token price rather than distributed as separate income events, strengthens their regulatory case.

Carlos was direct about the implications: "If they approve it with staking, there's a good chance in my opinion that it goes along with Jito SOL or something like that." Such approval would be "insanely bullish for Jito" while simultaneously providing better yields for ETF investors—a genuine win-win scenario.

Treasury Companies vs. ETFs: Different Risk Profiles

The proliferation of public crypto treasury companies like DeFi Dev Corp raises questions about whether ETFs remain the optimal vehicle for regulated Solana exposure. These companies argue they offer superior returns because they can stake their entire balance without the liquidity constraints that ETFs face, potentially generating higher yields with less commission overhead.

Carlos acknowledged the validity of these arguments but emphasized the different risk profiles involved: "At the end of the day, I think there are some investors who would prefer to just have exposure to the underlying asset without this added layer of risk." Treasury companies introduce counterparty risk that doesn't exist with direct ETF exposure to the underlying token.

The comparison to MicroStrategy and Bitcoin ETFs proves instructive. Both vehicles coexist successfully because they serve different investor needs and risk tolerances. Pension funds or other conservative allocators might strongly prefer the straightforward exposure of a Solana ETF over the additional complexities of a treasury company's equity.

Jack raised concerns about the sustainability of some treasury company models, noting that "part of the way that you find this Bitcoin yield or whatever that people are trying to replicate is by new investors coming in and buying up your equity." This dynamic could lead to severe share price declines during drawdowns, a risk that direct ETF holders wouldn't face assuming the underlying token maintains value.

Market Share Expectations and Success Metrics

When pressed to define what success would look like for Solana ETFs, Carlos went on record with a bold prediction: Solana ETF AUM surpassing Ethereum within the first year. Currently, Ethereum ETFs hold approximately $9.3-10 billion in assets under management, while Bitcoin ETFs dominate at around $130 billion—roughly 13 times the size.

"Dollar for dollar, a dollar of ETF inflows is more impactful for SOL because it has a lower market cap," Carlos noted. This mathematical reality means that even Ethereum-level inflows would create proportionally greater price impact for Solana. The combination of a more attractive yield proposition and growing ecosystem adoption could potentially drive flows that exceed Ethereum's performance.

The prediction carries significant implications. If Solana ETFs attract $10+ billion within their first year, it would represent a major validation of the ecosystem's institutional appeal and could trigger additional capital flows as portfolio managers seek to match peer allocations. Success at this level would cement Solana's position as the third major crypto asset in traditional finance portfolios.

Understanding the CLOB Narrative

The conversation shifted to what Carlos characterized as a "very astroturfed trend" on crypto Twitter: the central limit order book narrative. While Jack expressed skepticism about the organic nature of this discussion, the underlying technical considerations merit serious attention for understanding DeFi's evolution.

Central limit order books represent a more sophisticated trading mechanism than automated market makers. Where AMMs like Uniswap use constant product formulas with passive liquidity pools that rebalance automatically, CLOBs match bids and asks directly, similar to traditional exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange or Binance. This architecture enables tighter spreads and more efficient price discovery, but comes with significant technical requirements.

"AMMs are really good at bootstrapping liquidity," Carlos explained. "And are really good to handle liquidity for long tail assets like new meme coins because market makers will never really attempt to take on this vertical because it's too risky for them." This creates a natural division where AMMs excel with new, volatile assets while CLOBs better serve established, liquid markets.

Solana's Technical Challenges With On-Chain Order Books

Solana has made several attempts at implementing on-chain order books, with protocols like Phoenix achieving some success but struggling to gain significant traction. The fundamental challenge lies in technical limitations of the Solana L1 that create structural disadvantages for market makers relative to what Carlos termed "toxic takers."

"On Solana, you can't really prioritize cancels or take orders. So on Solana, market makers have a structural disadvantage to toxic takers," Carlos explained. This imbalance means market makers cannot provide spreads as tight as they would on platforms optimized for this use case, resulting in worse execution for traders and less incentive for professional liquidity providers.

This limitation has driven several projects to build dedicated infrastructure for order book trading. Zeta Markets, one of Solana's OG protocols dating back to May 2021, has pivoted to building Bullet—an ultra-low latency rollup labeled as a network extension. Similarly, Fogo is building its own SVM-based chain using the pure Firedancer client with collocated validators optimized for financial applications.

Hyperliquid's Dominance and Structural Advantages

Hyperliquid has emerged as the undisputed leader in on-chain perpetual futures trading, processing approximately six times more volume than all Solana perps DEXs combined. This dominance stems from structural advantages built into their purpose-designed L1, including a permissioned validator set that enables optimizations impossible on generalized blockchains.

The platform's success has created a new narrative around "CLOB wars," with various projects attempting to replicate Hyperliquid's approach. Carlos recently published a Hyperliquid dashboard on his data product, reflecting growing interest in understanding and potentially competing with this dominant player.

While some critics attribute Hyperliquid's success primarily to its no-KYC policy, Carlos pushed back against this characterization: "I think that's undermining what they have pulled off. I think they have like a great product, and that's why people are using them." The combination of superior technology and regulatory arbitrage creates a formidable competitive position.

Why Pump.fun Shouldn't Compete With Hyperliquid

Jack raised an intriguing question: with Pump.fun reportedly raising a billion dollars via an ICO, why wouldn't they acquire a protocol like Bullet or Drift and build a competitor to Hyperliquid? The logic seems compelling—own meme coins and perpetuals, the two most popular on-chain trading venues.

Carlos offered a nuanced counterargument focused on fundamentally different business models and user profiles. Pump.fun functions as a consumer product with high turnover of meme coins, where approximately 70% of Raydium's volume comes from pools created within the past 30 days. Perpetuals volume, by contrast, concentrates on major assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and HYPE—established tokens with active market makers.

"For perps, you see a lot of the volume come from the majors," Carlos observed. "It's like a very different trader profile. And you have active market makers engaging in the quoting of these assets, whereas you wouldn't have market makers quoting a meme coin that is one day old." The infrastructure and expertise required for each business diverge significantly.

Jack ultimately concluded that centralized exchanges like Binance might represent more natural Hyperliquid competitors, given their existing infrastructure and incentive to defend market share from DeFi alternatives.

The Bifurcation of DEX Dominance

Carlos identified an important trend in Solana's DEX landscape: a bifurcation of dominance based on asset type. This split has significant implications for protocol positioning and competitive dynamics going forward.

For long-tail assets like new meme coins, AMMs will continue to dominate. No alternative exists for bootstrapping liquidity on volatile, newly-launched tokens where professional market makers refuse to participate. This ensures continued relevance for Raydium, Pump Swap, and similar protocols serving the meme coin ecosystem.

For highly liquid markets like SOL/USD or stablecoin pairs, trading volume increasingly flows to proprietary AMMs like Solfi. These oracle-based AMMs use protocol-owned liquidity to quote assets quickly and provide optimal price execution. Notably, approximately 80% of Solfi's volume comes from aggregators, demonstrating that it consistently offers the best prices for these pairs.

"When you look at Raydium and Pump, the percentage of volume that comes from aggregators is very low—it's like 20%," Carlos explained. Most of their volume comes directly from their DEX or through Telegram trading bots like Axiom. This pattern reveals fundamentally different trading profiles and suggests each category of protocol serves distinct market needs.

Raydium's Declining Market Share

Carlos's monthly Solana report highlighted a concerning trend for Raydium: market share declining from almost 60% at the beginning of the year to 35% currently. This erosion directly correlates with Pump.fun's launch of Pump Swap, which eliminated Raydium as the graduation destination for successful token launches.

"We knew in February when Pump announced they were going to phase out Raydium graduations for their own AMM that it was going to be bearish for their volumes," Carlos acknowledged. For a protocol where 80% of volume comes from meme coins and two-thirds from pools less than 30 days old, losing access to new token flow represents an existential threat to the business model.

Raydium's response—launching Launch Lab to compete directly with Pump.fun—has shown mixed results. While they've secured partnerships with ecosystem players like Bonk, which uses Launch Lab's backend for its launchpad product, the effort hasn't matched Pump.fun's momentum. Nevertheless, Carlos noted that Raydium "is an OG DeFi protocol in the Solana ecosystem" with strong revenues that should enable survival while competing for market share.

The Philosophy of Owning the User Flow

A recurring theme throughout the conversation centered on the increasing importance of controlling user relationships and flow. Carlos referenced a framework articulated by Mark from the Blockworks research team: "own the user, own the flow."

This philosophy explains why protocols are increasingly building integrated experiences rather than serving as modular infrastructure. Pump.fun's decision to build Pump Swap rather than continuing to route graduations through Raydium reflects this calculus—whoever controls the user interface captures the most value.

The same logic applies across DeFi. Front-ends that aggregate liquidity can extract significant value by directing flow to preferred venues. Telegram trading bots capture users at their natural interface rather than requiring them to navigate to dedicated websites. Understanding this dynamic is essential for evaluating protocol competitiveness.

Circle's Blockbuster IPO and Stablecoin Dominance

The conversation concluded with analysis of Circle's remarkably successful IPO, which saw significant price appreciation driven by investor conviction that stablecoins represent crypto's breakout product. The offering attracted major financial institutions including BlackRock and Ark Invest.

"For so long people had this question of how do I get exposure to stablecoins," Carlos explained. "Circle is just this direct way to get exposure to stablecoins, and you kind of don't have that anywhere else in the market." This scarcity of pure-play stablecoin investments concentrated capital into Circle's equity.

The Plasma raise—which secured $500 million within one minute before expanding to $1 billion—further demonstrates the intensity of investor interest in stablecoin infrastructure. These valuations reflect expectations that stablecoins will continue growing as primary crypto use cases.

Regulatory Tailwinds for Centralized Stablecoin Issuers

Beyond market dynamics, regulatory developments favor centralized issuers like Circle over decentralized alternatives. Carlos noted that recent stablecoin legislation favors centralized issuers over decentralized protocols like Sky or Ethena.

"What we've seen is that centralized issuers are getting an insurmountable lead over decentralized issuers," Carlos observed. This regulatory environment creates structural advantages for compliant, regulated entities that can navigate the traditional financial system's requirements.

However, Carlos distinguished between competition from decentralized protocols and competition from traditional finance. Banks may eventually launch their own stablecoins to compete with Circle: "It just doesn't make sense that they just let them take away the entire market." The substantial profitability demonstrated by Circle creates powerful incentives for new market entrants.

USDC Dominance on Solana and Global Dynamics

Circle dominates the Solana stablecoin market with over 70% of all supply held in USDC. The successful IPO could reinforce this position as institutions integrate Circle's backend technology and develop familiarity with their systems.

Yet Carlos pushed back against the notion that Circle has achieved absolute dominance globally. "I think Tether still has the ability to maintain its lead over Circle. Maybe Circle or USDC will be favored for US entities, but I think globally Tether will maintain its dominance for USDT."

This geographic bifurcation—USDC for US-regulated entities, USDT for global and offshore uses—may prove durable. The regulatory certainty that makes USDC attractive to American institutions simultaneously limits its appeal in jurisdictions seeking to avoid US financial system entanglements.

The Emerging Stablecoin Chain Phenomenon

The conversation touched on an intriguing development: purpose-built stablecoin chains like Plasma seeking to capture the narrative by offering dedicated infrastructure. These projects recognize that direct stablecoin exposure is valuable but difficult to obtain, creating opportunity for new infrastructure plays.

Whether stablecoin chains can compete with established issuers remains uncertain, but the investment activity in this sector demonstrates confidence in continued stablecoin growth. The $1 billion raised by Plasma reflects expectations that specialized infrastructure will capture meaningful value as stablecoin usage expands.

Looking Ahead: Solana's Institutional Moment

The convergence of ETF approval momentum, staking yield advantages, and proven European demand positions Solana for what could be a transformative period of institutional adoption. If regulators approve staking-enabled products—potentially incorporating liquid staking solutions like Jito—Solana ETFs would offer a uniquely attractive value proposition combining capital appreciation potential with steady yield.

Carlos's prediction that Solana ETF AUM could surpass Ethereum within a year would represent a remarkable achievement and validation of the ecosystem's maturation. The mathematical reality of Solana's smaller market cap means that even moderate institutional adoption could generate outsized price impact.

The Technical Infrastructure Evolution

Simultaneously, the ecosystem is evolving its technical infrastructure to address limitations that have constrained certain use cases. Projects building dedicated infrastructure for order book trading—whether through network extensions, rollups, or purpose-built chains—represent attempts to capture value from increasingly sophisticated DeFi applications.

The bifurcation of DEX activity based on asset type suggests a maturing market where different protocols optimize for distinct use cases rather than competing for all flow. This specialization could strengthen the overall ecosystem by ensuring optimal execution across different trading profiles.

DeFi Protocol Positioning in a Changing Landscape

For existing Solana DeFi protocols, the shifting landscape demands strategic adaptation. Raydium's declining market share illustrates the risks of depending on flow from other protocols. The emphasis on owning user relationships pushes protocols toward more integrated experiences.

Yet opportunities exist for protocols that successfully differentiate. Raydium's OG status and strong revenue base provide resources to compete. Partnerships with ecosystem players like Bonk demonstrate alternative paths to user acquisition. The key lies in understanding where unique value can be created in an increasingly competitive environment.

Stablecoin Strategy for Protocol and Ecosystem Development

Circle's dominance on Solana creates both stability and potential concerns. Ecosystem concentration in a single stablecoin issuer creates systemic dependencies. The emergence of alternative stablecoins like USDG could provide beneficial diversification even if they don't challenge USDC's market position.

The stablecoin sector's attractiveness to traditional finance—evidenced by Circle's IPO and potential bank entrants—suggests increasing institutional engagement with crypto infrastructure. This engagement could accelerate ecosystem development while also introducing traditional finance dynamics into what has been a largely crypto-native domain.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Solana

The combination of imminent ETF approvals, favorable staking economics, proven international demand, and evolving technical infrastructure positions Solana at a pivotal moment. The decisions made by regulators in the coming weeks regarding staking and liquid staking derivatives could shape institutional adoption for years to come.

Carlos's analysis suggests reasons for optimism across multiple dimensions. European success demonstrates institutional appetite for Solana exposure. The potential for staking-enabled products creates differentiation from existing Ethereum ETFs. Ecosystem maturation addresses technical limitations while maintaining advantages in areas like meme coin liquidity.

For ecosystem participants, understanding these dynamics enables better positioning regardless of specific outcomes. The trends toward user ownership, specialized infrastructure, and institutional products reflect broader industry maturation that will continue shaping opportunities and challenges.

As Carlos noted when setting success metrics, surpassing Ethereum ETF AUM within a year would represent meaningful validation. The ingredients exist for such an outcome. What remains is execution—by regulators, issuers, and ecosystem participants—to realize this potential and establish Solana as a primary vehicle for institutional digital asset exposure.

Facts + Figures

• The SEC has asked prospective Solana ETF issuers to file amended S-1 forms, signaling active engagement with approval processes

• Bloomberg analysts predict Solana ETF approval could come as early as July 2025

• Ethereum ETFs currently hold approximately $9.3-10 billion in AUM, while Bitcoin ETFs hold around $130 billion

• Solana's real staking yield measures approximately 4% according to Blockworks data

• At 21shares, the Solana ETP is the largest product by AUM with almost $1 billion, surpassing even Bitcoin ETP

• The 21shares Solana ETP ranks among the top five European crypto products including Bitcoin offerings

• Approximately 80% of Jito Solfi's volume comes from aggregators, demonstrating superior price execution

• For Raydium and Pump Swap, only about 20% of volume comes from aggregators

• Raydium's market share has declined from almost 60% at the beginning of 2025 to 35% currently

• Approximately 80% of Raydium's volume comes from meme coins

• About two-thirds of Raydium's volume comes from pools less than 30 days old

• Hyperliquid processes approximately six times more perpetual futures volume than all Solana perps DEXs combined

• Circle dominates over 70% of all stablecoin supply on Solana

• DeFi Dev Corp recently secured a $5 billion equity line

• Plasma raised $500 million within one minute, later expanded to $1 billion

• The SEC has specifically asked issuers about staking implementation in Solana ETF filings

• Jito has been publicly engaging with the SEC, arguing Jito SOL is not a security

• Carlos predicts Solana ETF AUM could surpass Ethereum's within one year of approval

Questions Answered

When will Solana ETFs be approved?

Bloomberg analysts predict Solana ETF approval could come as early as late June or July 2025. The SEC has actively engaged with prospective issuers by requesting amended S-1 forms, which are registration statements necessary for products to trade on regulated exchanges. This direct engagement signals serious intent to move forward with approvals, though the exact timing depends on how issuers respond to SEC requests, particularly regarding in-kind redemptions and staking implementation.

Will Solana ETFs include staking?

The SEC appears open to allowing staking in Solana ETFs, having specifically asked issuers to explain their staking plans in amended filings. This represents a departure from Ethereum ETFs, which were approved without staking functionality. If approved, staking would provide approximately 4% real yield to investors while protecting them from inflation dilution that affects non-staked positions. There's also potential for liquid staking solutions like Jito SOL to be included, which would improve operational efficiency.

How do Solana ETFs compare to treasury companies like DeFi Dev Corp?

Solana ETFs and treasury companies serve different investor needs with distinct risk profiles. Treasury companies can potentially stake their entire balance without liquidity constraints, possibly generating higher yields. However, they introduce counterparty risk that doesn't exist with direct ETF exposure to the underlying token. Conservative institutional allocators like pension funds may prefer the straightforward exposure of ETFs over the additional complexities of treasury company equity, which could decline severely during market drawdowns.

What is the difference between CLOBs and AMMs?

Central limit order books match bids and asks directly like traditional exchanges, enabling tighter spreads and more efficient price discovery for liquid assets. Automated market makers use constant product formulas with passive liquidity pools that rebalance automatically, making them better suited for bootstrapping liquidity on new or volatile assets. AMMs will continue dominating long-tail assets like meme coins where market makers won't participate, while CLOBs better serve established, highly liquid markets.

Why is Hyperliquid dominating on-chain perpetuals trading?

Hyperliquid processes approximately six times more perpetual futures volume than all Solana perps DEXs combined due to structural advantages built into their purpose-designed L1. Their permissioned validator set enables optimizations impossible on generalized blockchains, allowing market makers to provide tighter spreads. While some attribute their success to no-KYC policies, the combination of superior technology and product quality has established formidable competitive positioning that various projects are now attempting to replicate.

Why has Raydium's market share declined?

Raydium's market share dropped from nearly 60% to 35% after Pump.fun launched Pump Swap and eliminated Raydium as the graduation destination for successful token launches. Since 80% of Raydium's volume comes from meme coins and two-thirds from pools less than 30 days old, losing access to new token flow significantly impacted their business model. Their response—Launch Lab—has shown mixed results despite partnerships with ecosystem players like Bonk.

Should Pump.fun compete with Hyperliquid?

Pump.fun and Hyperliquid serve fundamentally different markets with distinct user profiles and business models. Pump.fun functions as a consumer product with high meme coin turnover, while Hyperliquid's perpetuals volume concentrates on major assets with active professional market makers. The infrastructure and expertise required for each business diverge significantly, making centralized exchanges like Binance more natural Hyperliquid competitors given their existing infrastructure and incentive to defend market share.

What does Circle's IPO mean for stablecoins on Solana?

Circle's blockbuster IPO, which attracted BlackRock and Ark Invest, validates stablecoins as crypto's breakout product while potentially reinforcing USDC's dominant position on Solana, where it holds over 70% of stablecoin supply. However, regulatory advantages for centralized issuers may eventually attract bank competition. Geographic bifurcation may persist, with USDC favored for US-regulated entities while Tether maintains global dominance outside American jurisdiction.

How successful have Solana ETFs been in Europe?

European Solana ETPs have proven remarkably successful. At 21shares, the Solana ETP is actually the largest product by AUM with almost $1 billion, surpassing even their Bitcoin ETP. It ranks among the top five European crypto products. While significant inflows occurred when SOL traded below $100 and compounded as the asset repriced upward, this success demonstrates genuine institutional appetite for Solana exposure when proper regulatory vehicles exist.