Generated August 9, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
Overview
BITY and BLOX are both cryptocurrency-focused income ETFs using options strategies to generate high monthly or weekly distributions, but they differ fundamentally in underlying exposure and strategy mechanics. BITY holds Bitcoin directly and writes covered calls on it to target a 24% yield; BLOX holds a diversified basket of crypto-related equities and employs a broader options strategy to target a 38% yield. Both are recent launches designed for investors seeking current income from digital-asset exposure rather than long-term capital appreciation.
How they differ
The single biggest difference is underlying exposure: BITY is a direct Bitcoin play, while BLOX holds equity securities of crypto-focused companies—a materially different risk profile. BITY's 23.92% distribution rate comes from Bitcoin-backed covered calls written monthly; BLOX's 37.58% rate comes from weekly options income on an equity portfolio, meaning BLOX is distributing at a much higher percentage of its net asset value and drawing down capital more aggressively. BLOX's beta of 3.11 versus BITY's 1.79 reflects both the higher leverage in its options strategy and its equity-portfolio construction; BITY's direct Bitcoin exposure should track closer to Bitcoin's own volatility. BLOX is also substantially larger, with $280M in AUM versus BITY's $12.4M, and charges a higher expense ratio of 0.99% compared to BITY's 0.65%.
Who each is best for
- BITY: Fits investors seeking pure Bitcoin income exposure who want monthly cash flow and accept that covered calls will cap upside appreciation during strong Bitcoin rallies.
- BLOX: Fits investors who want cryptocurrency sector exposure without direct Bitcoin or Ethereum holdings, are comfortable with weekly income timing, and prioritize maximum near-term yield despite faster NAV decay risk.
Key risks to know
- NAV erosion at extreme distribution yields: BLOX's 37.58% annualized distribution rate means the fund is likely paying out capital in excess of the underlying equity portfolio's earnings and options premium, accelerating NAV decline over time. BITY's 23.92% rate, while still high, is closer to the premium income a Bitcoin options strategy can sustainably generate month-to-month.
- Crypto-related equity risk distinct from Bitcoin: BLOX's basket of crypto companies introduces business, regulatory, and technology risk separate from cryptocurrency price risk. A Bitcoin price rally may not lift BLOX as much as BITY; conversely, a crypto crash coupled with equity-market stress could drive BLOX down faster due to its higher beta of 3.11.
- Options-writing assignment and roll risk: Both funds write options; BITY's covered calls on Bitcoin may result in Bitcoin being called away at the strike price, forcing reinvestment at higher prices. BLOX's weekly distribution cadence means more frequent rolling and rebalancing of its options position, increasing execution risk and bid-ask slippage.
- Concentration and liquidity in small fund (BITY): At $12.4M AUM, BITY has limited scale, which may make it harder to trade large positions without moving the price and may lead to higher effective costs if inflows or outflows force rapid rebalancing.
- Beta and volatility amplification: BLOX's beta of 3.11 means it will swing roughly three times as hard as the broad market, exacerbating losses if crypto equities sell off sharply alongside a market correction.
Bottom line
BITY offers direct Bitcoin income at a more moderate distribution rate; BLOX chases higher current yield from a diversified crypto-equity portfolio but at significantly higher NAV erosion risk and volatility. If you want pure Bitcoin exposure with sustainable monthly income, BITY's structure aligns better; if you prefer diversified crypto-sector participation and can tolerate rapid capital drawdown for maximum near-term payouts, BLOX's higher yield and larger size may appeal. Neither fund's track record extends far enough to validate whether these distribution rates can persist; past performance does not predict future results.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.