Everyone’s filing for an XRP ETF, except BlackRock. Here’s why the giant’s sitting this one out

The SEC and Ripple saga has finally wound down, the XRP price is breaking resistance levels it hasn’t touched in years, and exchange-traded fund (ETF) issuers are lining up to ride the wave.

Franklin Templeton (NYSE: BEN), Grayscale, ProShares... just about every asset manager with a crypto playbook is filing for spot and futures XRP ETFs.

And then there’s BlackRock (NYSE: BLK).

The world’s largest asset manager, the same firm that bulldozed its way to the top of the spot Bitcoin ETF market and swiftly cornered the Ethereum ETF trade, is suddenly… nowhere to be found. No application. No “we’re evaluating options.” Just radio silence except for a carefully worded “no plans at this time.”

Join the discussion with CryptoWendyO on Roundtable here.

For context, BlackRock manages a staggering $11.5 trillion — that includes global ETF dominance, massive institutional accounts, and more. Meanwhile, Franklin Templeton, another XRP ETF filer, manages a solid $1.6 trillion, giving it scale but not anywhere near BlackRock’s scope. And ProShares, the niche ETF wizard with aggressive strategies, oversees around $70 billion in assets.

For a company that usually smells opportunity before the rest of Wall Street even wakes up, this is not business as usual. But if you step back and think about BlackRock’s DNA, the reasons start to make sense.

They don’t chase every rally

BlackRock’s dominance in the Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF markets came from calculated, low-risk entries into high-demand products. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two cryptocurrencies with the deepest liquidity, the most mature derivatives markets, and the clearest institutional demand.

BlackRock remains the clear leader in spot Bitcoin ETFs, with cumulative inflows of roughly $57.9 billion into its iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) — nearly five times the $12.05 billion handled by Fidelity’s FBTC and dwarfing smaller issuers like Bitwise, Ark, and Invesco. Most issuers, including BlackRock and Fidelity, charge a 0.25% management fee, making scale and brand dominance the key differentiators in capturing flows.

Join the discussion with Scott Melker on Roundtable here.

While XRP has a devoted global community, and its payment rails are used in real-world cross-border transfers. But in the eyes of a massive asset manager catering to pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds, XRP doesn’t yet have the same “core portfolio” status that BTC and ETH enjoy.

BlackRock has said before, in more general terms, that their clients overwhelmingly ask for Bitcoin first, Ethereum second, and then there’s a steep drop-off. If your client base isn’t calling your sales desk about XRP, why rush to build the product?

The legal clouds haven’t fully cleared

BlackRock doesn’t just need XRP to be “not a security.” They need to know that the entire infrastructure around custody, pricing, and market oversight is bulletproof against future regulatory whiplash. Remember, they operate at a scale where even small compliance missteps can translate into billions in liability.

When BlackRock entered the Bitcoin ETF race, they weren’t just one of many—they were the market maker. Their filing alone shifted sentiment across the industry, and they leveraged their scale to dominate inflows.

Join the discussion with CryptosRUs on Roundtable here.

In XRP’s case, the race is already well underway. Multiple issuers have filed. Some are layering on leveraged and futures-based variations. By the time BlackRock would go live, the early-mover advantage might be gone, and the economics of entering a crowded, niche ETF segment could look far less appealing.

The risk–reward isn’t lopsided enough

Let’s be honest: for most of Wall Street, the point of launching an ETF is to capture AUM and fee revenue. For Bitcoin, that potential was massive—tens of billions in inflows in the first year. Ethereum’s is smaller but still meaningful. XRP? It’s hard to make the math compelling without assuming a big wave of fresh demand.

If that wave doesn’t materialize, you’re stuck running a low-AUM product that ties up operational resources and legal bandwidth for years. That’s a trade BlackRock doesn’t need to take.

So will they ever file?

Probably, if certain boxes get ticked. Clearer regulatory frameworks. Deeper and more geographically balanced liquidity. A signal from their biggest clients that they want XRP exposure in the same way they wanted BTC and ETH.

Join the discussion with Mario Nawfal on Roundtable here.

Until then, expect BlackRock to keep doing what they do best: moving only when the odds are stacked in their favor and when they can enter a market not just as another player, but as the dominant force.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of TheStreet or its affiliates. This piece is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.

Innehållet på den här sidan tillhandahålls av tredje part. Om inte annat anges är OKX inte författare till den eller de artiklar som citeras och hämtar inte någon upphovsrätt till materialet. Innehållet tillhandahålls endast i informationssyfte och representerar inte OKX:s åsikter. Det är inte avsett att vara ett godkännande av något slag och bör inte betraktas som investeringsrådgivning eller en uppmaning att köpa eller sälja digitala tillgångar. I den mån generativ AI används för att tillhandahålla sammanfattningar eller annan information kan sådant AI-genererat innehåll vara felaktigt eller inkonsekvent. Läs den länkade artikeln för mer detaljer och information. OKX ansvarar inte för innehåll som finns på tredje parts webbplatser. Innehav av digitala tillgångar, inklusive stabila kryptovalutor och NFT:er, innebär en hög grad av risk och kan fluktuera kraftigt. Du bör noga överväga om handel med eller innehav av digitala tillgångar är lämpligt för dig mot bakgrund av din ekonomiska situation.