Completely hypothetical.
1) Agree
2) I think you have this backwards. ETFs aren’t making money on order flows. MMs and APs are paid for sourcing liquidity (e.g. bitcoin) for the ETFs, and then the ETF issues make their money on fees charged to the underlying holders. Less holders = less fees.
At least that’s how I understand it - happy to be corrected if I have this wrong.
2) Right. But there are no management fees to charge AUM at the moment. I called it order flow as a short hand (which, yes, is incorrect (since that more accurately describes how market makers earn revenues)) just to indicate that they are not the ones buying/selling. It’s their *clients* who are. So, the logic of Saylor dumping his ₿ to crush an ETF provider who chooses to support open devs doesn’t hurt the ETF as much as it would temporarily hurt all ETF shareholders with depressed prices, as well permanently hurting Microstrategy for shifting away from the “Bitcoin is our primary reserve asset” position he’s built up.
See? It just makes no sense and I don’t know why Odell is posting this type of stuff. It’s disconcerting.
