<\/span><\/h2>\nThe most cited requirement is that each ETF must maintain at least 80% of its net asset value in exposure to the underlying asset \u2014 either Bitcoin or Ethereum \u2014 measured on an annual average basis. That 80% figure sounds straightforward, but the “annual average” measurement matters.<\/p>\n
An ETF that drops below 80% Bitcoin exposure temporarily \u2014 perhaps to manage liquidity during a redemption wave \u2014 doesn’t immediately violate the rule. It must maintain the 80% threshold on average across the accounting year. This gives fund managers some operational flexibility but creates a tracking risk for investors: during periods when the fund is temporarily underexposed, your ETF may not fully reflect spot Bitcoin price movements.<\/p>\n
The remaining up to 20% of NAV can be held in cash, short-term government securities, or other liquid instruments. This is a standard buffer for ETF operations \u2014 managing redemptions, paying fees, covering transaction costs.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Only Bitcoin and Ethereum, Initially<\/span><\/h2>\nThe draft rules limit eligible underlying assets to Bitcoin and Ethereum for the initial phase. No Solana ETF, no XRP ETF, no thematic multi-crypto basket. The SEC is starting with the two assets that have the longest track record, deepest liquidity, and established regulatory status in other jurisdictions (particularly the US, where Bitcoin and Ether are both explicitly recognised as commodities under the Clarity Act framework).<\/p>\n
This means Thai investors who want crypto ETF exposure in THB will have to choose between a Bitcoin ETF and an Ethereum ETF \u2014 or hold both. Altcoin exposure through Thai-listed ETFs isn’t coming in the near term.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Custody: Domestic First, Foreign as Exception<\/span><\/h2>\nThe draft rules specify that crypto held by Thai ETFs must be primarily custodied with domestic digital asset custodians \u2014 firms licensed under the Thai SEC’s digital asset framework. Foreign custodians are permitted “when necessary and appropriate,” but they must meet their home jurisdiction’s requirements plus<\/em> Thai SEC standards.<\/p>\nThis domestic-custody preference has implications. Thai digital asset custodians are fewer and less established than major global custodians like Coinbase Custody or BitGo. The requirement may limit the choice of ETF managers initially and could affect costs \u2014 domestic custody in a less competitive market tends to cost more than global alternatives.<\/p>\n
On the positive side, domestic custody means investor assets are under Thai regulatory jurisdiction. In the event of a custodian failure, Thai bankruptcy law applies rather than a foreign framework \u2014 which matters for retail investor protection.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Which Asset Managers Can Launch These ETFs<\/span><\/h2>\nThe rules limit management to licensed asset management companies \u2014 the same firms that currently manage Thai mutual funds and SET-listed ETFs. This excludes digital asset exchanges (Bitkub, Gulf Binance) from launching ETFs directly. Established Thai asset managers, including those affiliated with major banks like KBank, SCB, and Krungsri, are the likely first movers.<\/p>\n