Vanguard Opened Crypto Access—Then Called Bitcoin a ‘Digital Labubu’
Vanguard’s crypto compromise remains intact: brokerage customers can trade eligible third-party cryptocurrency funds, while the asset manager still has no crypto product of its own. Vanguard’s current crypto guidance links that access decision to the products’ performance and liquidity during volatile periods, more mature administrative processes and changing investor preferences.
The policy therefore did not turn Vanguard into a Bitcoin advocate. On December 11, 2025, global quantitative-equity head John Ameriks compared Bitcoin with a “digital Labubu”—a fashionable plush collectible—because it lacked the income, compounding and cash-flow characteristics Vanguard seeks in long-term investments, as documented in Bloomberg Línea’s account of his remarks.
Access and endorsement are separate decisions
The apparent contradiction disappears once Vanguard’s two roles are separated. A brokerage operates the infrastructure through which customers buy investments from multiple providers; an asset manager decides which products it will design, manage and place under its own name. Supporting an outside fund operationally does not require adopting its investment thesis.
Vanguard applies that distinction to crypto by allowing most third-party cryptocurrency ETFs and mutual funds that meet regulatory standards. Its published position still rules out launching a Vanguard cryptocurrency ETF or mutual fund, while emphasizing transparent cash generation—such as dividends or interest—in the products it creates.
The company uses gold funds as a precedent for this arrangement. Customers can obtain exposure to third-party gold products through the brokerage even though Vanguard has never offered a gold ETF. Crypto access extends an existing distribution policy rather than creating a special endorsement for digital assets.
That distinction defines what the December 2025 change actually delivered. Customers gained a route to trade qualifying products through an existing account, but they did not receive a Vanguard-managed crypto strategy, a recommendation to buy Bitcoin or a conclusion that digital assets belong in every diversified portfolio.
What Ameriks meant by “digital Labubu”
Ameriks’s comparison was an argument about investment fundamentals, not a claim that Bitcoin and a collectible toy function in the same way. A collectible may appreciate because it is scarce, fashionable or expected to attract a higher bid from another buyer. A productive asset can also be assessed through cash it generates for its owner, including corporate earnings, rent or interest.
Holding Bitcoin alone does not distribute earnings or interest. Its price is determined by supply, demand and the amount market participants are prepared to pay. That does not establish that Bitcoin must lose value, but it explains why an investment philosophy centered on identifiable cash flows does not naturally produce a Vanguard-branded Bitcoin fund.
Ameriks did not describe the investment case as permanently closed. He identified persistent performance during high inflation or political instability as the sort of evidence that could support a less speculative portfolio role, while arguing that Bitcoin’s history was too short to establish such a dependable relationship. He also distinguished skepticism toward Bitcoin as an investment from the possible usefulness of blockchain technology in financial-market infrastructure.
The familiar wrapper does not change the underlying asset
A spot Bitcoin exchange-traded product can simplify the route to exposure. Investors trade shares on a national securities exchange and do not personally operate a crypto wallet or manage private cryptographic keys. The product itself, however, remains exposed to the custody, pricing and market risks associated with the Bitcoin it holds.
Legal terminology matters. The SEC investor bulletin on spot crypto products explains that spot Bitcoin and Ether vehicles are exchange-traded commodity trusts, not investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. They may commonly be called ETFs, but they are not subject to every valuation and asset-custody requirement imposed on funds registered under that law.
The exchange-traded structure also does not guarantee perfect tracking. A product’s share price can diverge from the value of its crypto holdings, while disruption or manipulation in the underlying market can affect the exposure. Sponsor fees create another structural difference from direct ownership: because the trust does not generate income, paying those fees gradually reduces the quantity of crypto represented by each share.
These limitations reinforce Vanguard’s two-track position. A product can be sufficiently liquid and administratively serviceable for a brokerage platform without satisfying the investment criteria Vanguard uses when creating funds. Platform availability answers whether a customer can place a trade; it does not answer whether the trade is suitable, attractively valued or likely to meet a financial objective.
What has changed since the original dispute
The enduring development is not a reversal of Vanguard’s investment philosophy. The brokerage-access policy introduced in December 2025 remains reflected in the company’s public guidance, and the restriction on Vanguard-branded crypto products remains alongside it. Access persisted; endorsement did not follow.
Ameriks’s “digital Labubu” remark is therefore more than a colorful dismissal. It captures the reasoning behind the boundary Vanguard continues to draw: outside crypto products may be accommodated as customer-directed transactions, while Bitcoin’s lack of intrinsic cash flow keeps it outside the company’s own product strategy. The practical consequence is a brokerage shelf that is broader than the asset manager’s convictions.
Also read:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest Web3, AI, and crypto news delivered straight to your inbox.