As of September 17, Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said Bitcoin ETFs could eventually hold three times the assets of gold ETFs. Based on current figures, that would mean Bitcoin ETF assets rising from roughly $95.8 billion to nearly $1.85 trillion—about 19 times their current size.
That estimate is not a Bitcoin price target. It does, however, point to a potentially broader pool of capital and a wider role for Bitcoin in traditional portfolios as ETFs bring the asset into established investment channels. The eventual outcome would depend on continued inflows, Bitcoin's price, ETF holdings and the pace at which gold ETFs continue to grow.
Younger investors could provide a longer-term funding base
Balchunas' first argument, outlined on social media, is that Bitcoin and gold attract different investor groups. A 2026 Pew survey found that 26% of Americans aged 18 to 29 had used cryptocurrency, compared with 28% of those aged 30 to 49 and 10% of people aged 50 and older.
Those figures do not mean younger investors will immediately commit comparable amounts of capital. As that group accumulates more wealth, however, its allocation to Bitcoin could change. Gold ETF ownership, by contrast, is generally more concentrated among older investors.
Institutional participation has room to grow
Institutional involvement in US Bitcoin ETFs is another factor behind the long-term asset potential. In the first quarter of 2026, professional investors accounted for about 21% of US Bitcoin ETF assets. Investment advisers held Bitcoin exposure equivalent to roughly 150,000 BTC, while bank-related exposure had increased fourfold from a year earlier.
The figures show that institutions have entered the spot Bitcoin ETF market, but they do not indicate that institutional adoption is complete. Investment advisers, banks and other professional investors still need to assess Bitcoin's volatility, correlations and liquidity. ETF structures could remain one of the main channels through which institutions gain exposure to the asset.
Further growth in institutional participation will depend on several conditions, including the regulatory treatment of the products, custody arrangements, risk-management requirements and changes in Bitcoin's correlation with other assets. A higher institutional share would not automatically translate into sustained net inflows.
Traditional fund channels have generated $54.6 billion in net inflows
US Bitcoin ETFs have attracted about $54.6 billion in cumulative net inflows since their launch. Issuers include large asset managers such as BlackRock and Fidelity. Their distribution networks and investment-product platforms have brought Bitcoin into parts of the traditional investment system that previously focused mainly on stocks, bonds and gold.
Balchunas said Bitcoin ETFs currently have stronger marketing and sales momentum than gold ETFs. Few institutions actively promote gold ETFs on an ongoing basis, while Bitcoin ETFs have more issuers, wholesale distribution channels and investment advisers supporting them. The products have also drawn greater market attention.
Net inflows and assets under management are not interchangeable measures. ETF assets can rise because investors add new money, but they can also increase when the price of Bitcoin rises. Historical inflows alone therefore cannot be used to derive a future asset total.
The scenario implies roughly $488,000 to $732,000 per BTC
US Bitcoin ETFs currently hold about 1.26 million BTC in total. If ETF assets reached $1.85 trillion and holdings rose to 2.52 million BTC, a simple division of assets by holdings would imply a Bitcoin price of nearly $732,000.
If ETF holdings instead increased to about 3.78 million BTC, or three times the current amount, the implied price would be approximately $488,000. That produces an illustrative range of about $488,000 to $732,000, equivalent to roughly six to 10 times the current price.
This is a scenario calculation based on ETF assets and holdings, not a price forecast or investment objective. Gold ETF assets could continue to expand, while Bitcoin ETFs could build assets through a combination of price appreciation and additional BTC purchases. Those two paths would produce different implied prices.
Balchunas' view is therefore better understood as an assumption about the potential scale of long-term capital allocation, rather than a call on Bitcoin's short-term direction. The figures to watch include US Bitcoin ETF net flows, changes in institutional holdings, the amount of Bitcoin ETFs actually add, and whether gold ETF assets expand at the same time.