The post Bitcoin ETFs see 401(k) access after VanEck partnership appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. VanEck and Basic Capital partnership enables crypto ETFs inThe post Bitcoin ETFs see 401(k) access after VanEck partnership appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. VanEck and Basic Capital partnership enables crypto ETFs in

Bitcoin ETFs see 401(k) access after VanEck partnership

For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

VanEck and Basic Capital partnership enables crypto ETFs in 401(k) plans

VanEck has partnered with Basic Capital to include some of its crypto ETFs in its U.S. 401(k) retirement plan. The arrangement creates a pathway for participating employers to enable ETF-based crypto exposure within a qualified plan framework.

Availability will depend on each plan sponsor’s governance decisions and provider capabilities. The offering concerns ETFs, not direct token custody within participant accounts, which may simplify operations relative to holding crypto directly.

Why this matters for ERISA fiduciary duty and EBSA expectations

ERISA’s prudence and loyalty duties require a documented, participant-first process when adding any new asset class. As reported by the Plan Sponsor Council of America, federal guidance in 2022 urged fiduciaries to approach crypto and crypto-linked products with extreme care, citing valuation, custody, and regulatory concerns.

According to GARP, earlier federal guidance discouraging 401(k) crypto exposure was later rescinded, giving fiduciaries greater discretion while elevating expectations for analysis, monitoring, and participant protections. This partnership may therefore be evaluated under standard ERISA principles, with heightened documentation.

Industry perspectives remain divided, and some large providers remain skeptical about suitability for retirement savers. “Crypto is more of a speculation than an investment,” said Janel Jackson, head of ETF Capital Markets and Index Relations at Vanguard.

In practice, plans that work with the platform could make eligible VanEck crypto ETFs available through the core investment lineup or via a brokerage window, where supported. Sponsors would still need to align any access path with their investment policy and administrative controls.

According to Basic Capital, robust plan design controls, such as tight allocation caps, explicit opt-in, and prominent disclosures and education, can help manage volatility and participant risk. Such controls can be paired with ongoing review of usage, fees, and trading behavior.

Participant communications should explain that crypto-linked investments can be highly volatile and may not fit all risk profiles or time horizons. Sponsors may also consider periodic refreshers and decision aids calibrated to financial literacy levels.

ETF vs direct crypto exposure: operational and risk differences

Fees, custody, and tracking for ETFs versus direct holdings

ETF exposure introduces fund-level fees but avoids holding crypto directly inside the plan, reducing operational demands on fiduciaries. That structure can streamline valuation, safekeeping, and transaction handling compared with direct asset custody.

Direct crypto holdings would place more emphasis on day-to-day operational tasks that fiduciaries must evaluate carefully. By contrast, ETF wrappers centralize these functions at the fund level, creating a different mix of costs, controls, and residual risks.

Volatility management and suitability in retirement plan design

According to the Government Accountability Office, crypto asset volatility exceeds that of equities and bonds, raising suitability concerns for long-horizon retirement saving. The report also noted that less than 1% of defined contribution plan assets had crypto exposure, even via brokerage windows.

Given this profile, plan sponsors often consider measures like low allocation caps, explicit opt-in, and structured education, paired with ongoing monitoring and documentation. These tools aim to balance participant access with risk controls and fiduciary oversight.

FAQ about VanEck and Basic Capital partnership

Is offering crypto ETFs in a 401(k) prudent under ERISA, and what documentation do fiduciaries need to demonstrate prudence?

Prudence depends on process: evaluate risks, fees, alternatives, participant needs, education, and monitoring; document each step and rationale under ERISA’s prudence and loyalty standards.

What caps or plan design controls should sponsors use to manage crypto volatility and participant risk?

Common controls include tight allocation caps, explicit opt-in, zero default allocations, education materials, and ongoing monitoring consistent with the plan’s governance and risk framework.

Source: https://coincu.com/bitcoin/bitcoin-etfs-see-401k-access-after-vaneck-partnership/

Market Opportunity
OPT Logo
OPT Price(OPT)
$0.00154
$0.00154$0.00154
-4.52%
USD
OPT (OPT) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

UNI Price Prediction: Testing $4.17 Upper Band Resistance, Targets $4.50 by April 2026

UNI Price Prediction: Testing $4.17 Upper Band Resistance, Targets $4.50 by April 2026

Uniswap trades at $3.88 with neutral RSI at 51.98. Technical analysis suggests potential breakout to $4.17 upper Bollinger Band, with bullish targets reaching $
Share
BlockChain News2026/03/12 17:21
Speed, Cost, and Intelligence: How Kie.ai’s Gemini 3 Flash API Balances Performance and Budget for Developers

Speed, Cost, and Intelligence: How Kie.ai’s Gemini 3 Flash API Balances Performance and Budget for Developers

Integrating AI into applications is a balancing act between performance, cost, and intelligence. Traditionally, high-performance AI models come with steep costs
Share
Techbullion2026/03/12 16:55
Cash Flow Valuation HyperLiquid: Could $HYPE Reach $385 in Five Years?

Cash Flow Valuation HyperLiquid: Could $HYPE Reach $385 in Five Years?

Author: G3ronimo Compiled by: TechFlow HyperLiquid has grown into a mature crypto-native exchange, with the majority of its net fees programmatically distributed directly to token holders through an "Assistance Fund" (AF). This design makes $HYPE one of the few tokens capable of being valued based on cash flow. To date, most valuations of HyperLiquid have relied on traditional multiples, comparing it to established financial platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood, using EBITDA or revenue multiples as a reference. Unlike traditional corporate stocks, where management typically retains and reinvests earnings at their discretion, HyperLiquid systematically returns 93% of transaction fees directly to token holders through a support fund. This model creates predictable and quantifiable cash flows, making it well-suited for detailed discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis rather than static multiple comparisons. Our methodology begins by determining $HYPE's cost of capital. We then invert the current market price to determine the market-implied future earnings. Finally, we apply growth projections to these earnings streams and compare the resulting intrinsic value to today's market price, revealing the valuation gap between current pricing and fundamental value. Why choose discounted cash flow (DCF) over a multiple? While other valuation methods compare HyperLiquid to Coinbase and Robinhood via EBITDA multiples, these methods have the following limitations: The difference between the corporate and token structures: Coinbase and Robinhood are corporate stocks, whose capital allocation is guided by the board of directors, and profits are retained and reinvested by management; while HyperLiquid systematically returns 93% of trading fees directly to token holders through a relief fund. Direct Cash Flow: HyperLiquid's design generates predictable cash flows that are well-suited to DCF models, rather than static multiples. Growth and risk characteristics: DCFs are able to explicitly model different growth scenarios and risk adjustments, whereas multiples may not adequately capture growth and risk dynamics. Determining an appropriate discount rate To determine our cost of equity, we start with reference data from the public market and adjust for cryptocurrency-specific risks: Cost of equity (r) ≈ Risk-free rate + β × Market risk premium + Crypto/illiquidity premium Beta Analysis Based on regression analysis with the S&P 500: Robinhood (HOOD): Beta of 2.5, implied cost of equity of 15.6%; Coinbase (COIN): Beta of 2.0, implied cost of equity of 13.6%; HyperLiquid (HYPE): Beta is 1.38 and the implied cost of equity is 10.5%. At first glance, $HYPE appears to have a lower beta, and therefore a lower cost of equity than Robinhood and Coinbase. However, the R² value reveals an important limitation: HOOD: The S&P 500 explains 50% of its returns; COIN: The S&P 500 explains 34% of its return; HYPE: The S&P 500 only explains 5% of its returns. $HYPE’s low R² suggests that traditional stock market factors are insufficient to explain its price fluctuations, and crypto-native risk factors need to be considered. risk assessment Despite $HYPE’s lower beta, we still adjust its discount rate from 10.5% to 13% (which is more conservative compared to COIN’s 13.6% and HOOD’s 15.6%) for the following reasons: Lower governance risk: Direct programmatic distribution of 93% of fees reduces concerns about corporate governance. In contrast, COIN and HOOD do not return any earnings to shareholders, and their capital allocation is determined by management. Higher Market Risk: $HYPE is a crypto-native asset and is subject to additional regulatory and technological uncertainties. Liquidity considerations: Token markets are generally less liquid than established stock markets. Get the Market Implied Price (MIP) Using our 13% discount rate, we can reverse engineer the market’s implied earnings expectations at the current $HYPE token price of approximately $54: Current market expectations: 2025: Total revenue of $700 million 2026: Total revenue of $1.4 billion Terminal growth: 3% annual growth thereafter These assumptions yield an intrinsic value of approximately $54, which is consistent with current market prices. This suggests that the market is pricing in modest growth based on current fee levels. At this point we need to ask a question: Does the market-implied price (MIP) reflect future cash flows? Alternative growth scenarios @Keisan_Crypto presents an attractive 2-year and 5-year bull market scenario. Original tweet link: Click here Two-year bull market forecast According to @Keisan_Crypto’s analysis, if HyperLiquid achieves the following goals: Annualized fees: $3.6 billion Aid fund income: $3.35 billion (93% of fees) Result: HYPE's intrinsic value is $128 (140% undervalued at current price) Related links Five-year bull market scenario Under a five-year bull market scenario (link), he predicts that transaction fees will reach $10 billion annually, with $9.3 billion accruing to $HYPE. He assumes HyperLiquid's global market share will grow from its current 5% to 50% by 2030. Even if it doesn't reach 50% market share, these figures are still achievable with a smaller market share as global trading volumes continue to grow. Five-year bull market forecast Annualized fees: $10 billion Aid fund income: $9.3 billion Result: HYPE's intrinsic value is $385 (600% undervalued at current price) Related links While this valuation is lower than Keisan's $1,000 target, the difference stems from our assumption of normalized earnings growth at 3% annually thereafter, while Keisan's model uses a cash flow multiple. We believe using cash flow multiples to project long-term value is problematic, as market multiples are volatile and can vary significantly over time. Furthermore, the multiples themselves incorporate earnings growth assumptions, while using the same cash flow multiple five years from now as one or two years later implies that growth levels from 2030 onward will be consistent with those in 2026/2027. Therefore, the multiples are more appropriate for short-term asset pricing. However, regardless of which model is used, $HYPE remains undervalued; this is a subtle difference. Additional Value Driver: USDH Under the Native Market model, USDH will use 50% of its stablecoin revenue for buybacks similar to a bailout fund. As a result, $HYPE can increase its free cash flow by $100 million (50% of $200 million) annually. Looking ahead five years, if USDH's market capitalization reaches $25 billion (currently still one-third of USDC's, and an even smaller portion of the total stablecoin market five years from now), its annual revenue could reach $1 billion. Following the same 50% distribution model, this would generate an additional $500 million in free cash flow per year for the aid fund. This would value each token at over $400. Excluding Value Drivers: HIP-3 and HyperEVM This DCF analysis intentionally excludes two important potential value drivers that are not amenable to cash flow modeling. Clearly, these would provide additional incremental value and could therefore be evaluated separately using different valuation methodologies and then added to this valuation. Summarize Our DCF analysis indicates that if HyperLiquid can maintain its growth trajectory and market position, the $HYPE token is significantly undervalued. The token's unique feature of programmatic fee distribution makes it particularly suitable for cash flow-based valuation methodologies. Methodological Notes This analysis builds on research by @Keisan_Crypto and @GLC_Research. The DCF model is open source and can be modified at the following link: https://valypto.xyz/project/hyperliquid/oNQraQIg Market data and forecasts are subject to change, and models should be updated promptly based on the latest information.
Share
PANews2025/09/19 08:00