CoinShares vs Digital Ascension Group

How CoinShares vs Digital Ascension Group compare on our ratings, asset manager specs, funding, pros and cons.

Feature	CoinShares Visit	Digital Ascension Group Visit
Ratings
Our score	4.4/5	3.3/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Track record & size	4.5	3.0
Product range	4.5	4.0
Fees	4.0	2.5
Regulation & custody	4.5	4.0
Transparency	4.5	3.0
Specs
Products	Spot ETFs, ETPs / ETNs, Index funds, Staking products	Private funds, Managed accounts, Crypto IRAs, Staking products
Clients	Retail, Institutions, Financial advisors	Accredited investors, Institutions, Financial advisors
Assets under management	$7.4 billion (December 2025)	Not disclosed
Flagship products	CoinShares Physical Bitcoin ETP (BITC), CoinShares Ethereum Staking ETP, CoinShares Solana Staking ETP, CoinShares Altcoins ETF (DIME)	DAG Wealth, Institutional Bitcoin SMA, Income Fund, Growth Fund
Assets covered	Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Sei	BTC, XRP, FLR, SGB, XDC
Fees	0.25% on Physical Bitcoin ETP, 0% management fee on Ethereum Staking ETP, 0.95% gross expense ratio on Altcoins ETF	Disclosed in Form ADV Part 2A prior to engagement
Regulators	AMF (France), SEC (United States)	SEC
Custodians	Komainu	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2013	2020
Headquarters	Jersey	United States
Investors	Not disclosed	Not disclosed
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Over $7.4B in gross assets under management at year-end 2025 Publicly listed on Nasdaq under ticker CSHR Holds MiFID, AIFM, and French AMF MiCA regulatory authorizations Zero percent management fee on the CoinShares Ethereum Staking ETP	Registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under CRD No. 328627 Uses independent qualified custodians rather than commingled firm custody Coordinates entity formation, trust design, and wealth management in-house Offers dedicated institutional Bitcoin separately managed account strategies
Cons	Suffered balance-sheet losses from the 2022 Terra collapse and FTX bankruptcy Underlying asset returns are exposed to high crypto volatility and market drawdowns US ETF lineup carries higher expense ratios up to 0.95% ETN exchange products expose investors to issuer counterparty risks	Services are tailored to United States clients and accredited wealth levels Advisory fee schedules require direct engagement and Form ADV review Entity structures like Wyoming LLCs do not eliminate federal income taxes FTSO delegation yield depends on third-party oracle performance and network rules
Best for	European retail and institutional brokerage accounts, Investors seeking regulated spot crypto exposure, Wealth managers allocating to staking ETPs	US crypto founders and high-net-worth holders, Investors seeking Wyoming crypto LLC structuring, RIAs needing institutional crypto sub-advisory

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.