majority of ETF's of any currency/asset offering, are and have been structured as trusts.
they purposefully separate the 'trust funds' asset holdings away from the main companies assets to avoid 'co-mingling' and having to pay taxes on trades/profits.

its what makes an ETF an ETF.. its what makes it different from standard company shares/stock options

§ could be a sat candidate

commonly its used for individually numbered sections of a document. but can be tweaked to refer to individual units of a bitcoin(aka sats)

or even ⓢ

my personal preference is a design of the @ 'at' symbol but with a 'S' instead of an 'a' in the center of the 'at' sign. so that its a 'sat'


what is needed when deciding on a icon/glyth for sats, is a symbol thats easily available as a copy and pasted ascii symbol

nutildah
yes scammers enjoy a scam. doesnt mean the victims get any value from it


you are the one promoting it as if it is something people should use.. basically your advertising a scam. conning people into spending bitcoin on some junk

you can cry all you like about "just read the project managers theory"

but his scammy description(theory) is not how real world logic, math, proof and economics work
its you that is avoiding all the math, logic and economics just to promote a scam and you are too afraid to admit you fell for it.

he chooses a "first sat" theory but economics shows first sats get deducted as fee's back to pools where the remainder is then given to outputs. thus breaking his theory
his explorer MISCOUNTS alot of things this has been proven many times

your perpetual ignorance of facts logic, math, proofs and data show you dont care about bitcoin immutable proof utility you only care about blindly following some dumb theory a project manager sponsors(or you hope they will sponsor) you to promote

an ETF is not the same as for instance buying shares in tesla(a company)
an ETF is not about assets of a companies retail function(standard stocks)

an ETF is different

an ETF is about a trust/brand who is offering its assets as collateral against shares of that trust/brand
its a separate category compared to standard stocks and shares of a company.

its standard practice for ETF to be structured like this.
here is a clue for you..
do you know the biggest ETF.. ill tell you its prudential. do you know its official nake of its ETF
"PGIM ETF Trust"
this trust has assets of alot of different investments. majority of them are also stored as.. wait for it.. trusts


the details to scrutinise about blackrock is not that its a trust. but what type of agreements the trust has, for instance in what circumstances can the sponsors dissolve it. if they can. and how.

for instance reading it, it shows that the trust can be dissolved if its forced to register as a MSB, or required to get a money transmitter licence or bitlicence.. and how share holders have no voting rights over decisions of changes to the agreement.

so while you play boring games of "OMG its a trust", move a few decades further on in your understanding of ETF structures and understand what really can make users of an ETF wary.

yes it is a trust.. learn what the T of ETF means *

but ontop of being a Trust, it's a trust based on Funds. (rather then property like real estate, art, IP, cars)
so thats the F part
and they have an Exchange system too which explains the E part(as oppose to just being a locked value trust, storing value until a richguys offspring/relative reaches a certain age)

edit to respond to below
*not literally(like a 5 year old) i mean figuratively as in learn how the structure is laid out of most ETF

exchange and traded mean the same synonym.. most people in the finance world treat the T as TRUST because thats the structure they set up for it in more then 9/10 cases.

if you think that ETF's are never and have never been structured as a trust before then you really do need to learn more.
heck even grayscales ETF offering is in the structure of a trust as just one example

seems you only want to take the literal 5yo approach to thinking about things, rather then researching further. i regret trying to simplifying it for you. seems people do need to put the extra leg work into explaining things..
so please go learn more about ETF and their structure. because in more then 9/10 cases they are all trust based systems

if it was company ownership based then thats just normal stocks and shares systems not an ETF. learn the difference of the structure that makes things a ETF instead of a standard company share ownership scheme. for your own learning benefit

the THEORY is just that THEORY, in practice it proves nothing hence why it remains THEORY

to prove something to no longer be just a theory you have to look at data outside of the scope of the theory to see if the end result still matches the theory. you also have to retest the theory in a different scenario to see if the theory still  fits the results (yep ordinals already has a counting error and many other things that debunk the theory)

when you append a meme/json as meta data at the end of a tx.. guess what it has no association with any input or output. its not part of the txdata that forms the TXID
the decision/proof/immutable lock pairing of junk to output is not in the blockdata.. its done at flimsy GUI decision of a project managers explorer(a decision he can change anytime he wants)

EG
bc1pNuttyMcDumDum 0.0002 -> bc1pNuttyvictimA 0.00019600
bc1pNuttyMcDimWhit 0.0002      bc1pNuttyvictimb 0.00019600
signed NuttyMcDumDum
signed NuttyMcDimWhit
meme/jsondata: elephant

that elephant has not made any decision of if it belonged to victim A or B, nor if its part of dumdum or dimwhit.. if you look at the block data.
heck its not even signed into the form of the txdata that forms the TXID nor appended to the end of an output. thus has no association

also
if say dimwhit has a special rare sat from block 750,001 reward meaning  (if we follow the theory) if you count sats victim B has it as its in position 20001 of the spending amount (first sat of second input)..

however if you look at BITCOIN ECONOMICS
the FEE is deducted first and the remainder is then spent, by assigning the remainder to destinations
by which 800 sats are removed first from a spend. meaning the 'first sat of dimwit' is in position
19201 not 20001 which puts it into victim A (thus changes the destination theory)

if say DumDum had a first sat. then that first sat goes straight back to the pool as part of the fee thats first deducted from the inputs. where the remainder 801th-39200th sat then goes to the destinations

.. but with all that explained about first sat stuff..
the metadata meme junk appended to the end of a transaction has not chosen a output or what relevant sat is relevant to attach to.

for instance
there are less than 800k rare sats (you only get 1 rare sat per block and block height is under 800k) and so
with over 12million inscriptions.. hardly any are following the "rare sat" theory

here is another conundrum for you
what if dimWhits utxo was a first sat of block 750,001 but dumdum was a first sat of block 730,000
where by dumdum has a rarer sat because its the first sat of 19m circulation

yea.. the junk data does not have any linkage or decision or connection to which 'sat' it appends to.. and the ordinals explorer can change which it chooses to DISPLAY in the explorer.

a true proof of transfer should contain the logic within the transaction data, not sat outside the txdata which forms the TXID, also the logic should not be changed after confirmation(yet ordinals theory can change).
the logic should be in the blockdata not some GUI that can change any time it likes..

EG next year they decide 'last sat' is important because all first sats end up going to fee's (once they realise bitcoin economics) thus changing the explorers 'theory' ends up changing GUI representation(without immutable proof) to a different output. thus proving a break in all logic, theory, trust

its a scam look at the bare blockchain data of transactions that contake junk json crap. use logic, math, economics.
you will soon learn that there is no proof of transfer in regards to brc-20 nor their predecessor meme junk.
they are instead junk deadweight data appended to the very end of a transaction after the signing process. meaning that they are not part of the main txdata of inputs and outputs. thus are not actually tagged to any specific output. its just redundant metadata of its creators tx. and not part of some proof of transfer system

but yea scammers always try to find ways to scam for profits. even with things that have no value for the victim, where victims wont get refunds/compensation from their scammer, so instead victims become scammers themselves by finding new victims to victimise to try to get their funds back

brc-20 and its predecessor meme junk is not "bitcoin" by any shape or form of proof of transfer protocol

bitcoins values(emotions values of features and benefits and desires) are most of what the OP listed

bitcoin VALUE(economic number bottom far below premium at the top) is based on the periodic lowest acquisition cost on the planet which is where the most efficient mining cost over a period sets its value. this then becomes the store of value amount after being well tested for a period.

if you can buy bitcoin whilst its correcting near the value bottom, and not the premium top of a period you are storing more of your weal in value

EG 2021 value:$10k premium $69k
a. if you bought bitcoin at $60k you were only storing a 6th of your wealth in bitcoin
b. if you bought bitcoin at $30k you were only storing a 3rd of your wealth in bitcoin

then in 2022 when value grew to $15k those purchases last year meant more of your wealth got to be stored to resist losses should a market correction occur becasue the new raised bottom store of value went up to protect more wealth from risk
a. quarter of wealth
b. half of wealth

as time goes on the bottoms get tested and a new raised bottom is found setting the store of value at a higher number meaning storing more wealth from risk

eventually the store of value minimum/bottom will be above 2021's ATH of $69k

we already know you like centralisation of the bitcoin network usage we also know you like middle men taking a cut of peoples payments on other networks you want people to use instead of bitcoin, but those are not solutions for the users. thats solutions for businesses to get rich

when the bitcoin network is about decentralisation. and you think that all the centralisation games are features needed.. you have missed the whole point of bitcoins purpose. and ignoring decentralised solutions

all you want to promote is centralised crap and want to staunch any discussion of solutions that can help people remain independent and decentralised

and yes i still laugh how you want independent people to not use bitcoins blockchain to buy coffee/pizza using a 300byte tx. but happy if a centralised scam group uses one tx of 3.9mb to spend 1 sat for a monkey meme. where you think the monkey meme should pay less sats per byte than a lean legacy <300byte normal bitcoin transaction

---

the real solution is simple
users having lean transactions where their script is not some bloated crap unrelated to signing proofs.
where its not filled with junk data.

^
idiots advertising junk
dont buy into it.

high IQ does not make you a better person. it just makes you better at working thing out

IQ is not about being born with a skill or knowledge. its about having the better ability of finding solutions, work arounds, or even just spotting problems

idiots think that if they can call a flaw a feature that makes them smart. but they have not thought about the problem or a solution, or even a real useful function for the flaw.. so not knowing anything, they dont want to do anything about it so pretend its a feature just to stand at the sidelines pretending to be smart

however a smart person would see a problem and:
find a way to abuse the flaw in a way for gain.
find a way to fix it
inform others of the solution for fixing/gaining from it

but not all smart people are good people. there are many scammers that abuse dumb people.

those features are for when people agree to throw their funds into a group, it doesnt help individuals stay individual


yet the promise of taproots 'one signature length' lean tx efficient hopes. resulted in their scripts allowing 4mb of bloated deadweight data totally unrelated to signing proofs.

still laugh that the cult clan are against anyone doing a sub 300byte tx to spend coffee/pizza amounts and want them to stop and want them to only happen on other networks

yet they flip the script by saying dont stop 1sat being spend to add 3960000bytes of useless data that has no value and is not actually buying any real world product

and think this junk deadweight meme/json data will be the saviour of the network in 50 years.... their words

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0086.mediawiki
its taproot

the way they layout the derivation path is a common methodology shared by many networks. so that people can use a single seed phrase over multiple networks to get the desired public addresses that respond to those networks. so that you dont need to have multiple seeds per network

its for the address formats and the methods of starting from a private key/seed to a end result set of addresses

the 'cointype' (SLIPS)
where by for instance the litecoin network it takes in the same seed and processes it with litecoins 'cointype' versionbit to produce litecoin public addresses. where as on the bitcoin network using bitcoins cointype it would produce bitcoin addresses
heres a list of them https://github.com/satoshilabs/slips/blob/master/slip-0044.md#registered-coin-types

the 'purpose' (BIPS)
starting from 44 which is where numbers 44+ are deterministic type derivations
49 84 86 is for things like determining which format/function of deterministic addresses are to be formulated EG
p2sh-nested-segwit(49) -bitcoin address prefix '3'
native-segwit(84)  - bitcoin address prefix 'bc1q'
taproot(86) -bitcoin address prefix 'bc1p'

its not about never changing. its about changes made when the super majority have become ready to securely validate a change. to ensure no trojan junk gets added without supermajority recognition
then the change activates once majority of full nodes are accepting of a change.. rather then changes happening and full nodes need to play catch-up

. its about network security, using consensus in the way it has done before. it is about going back to the decentralised zero central point of failure system. where the network needs supermajority readiness to fully validate new features/functions(or prevent junk)

i know your mentor has not taught you about decentralised proposals, decentralised consensus, the byzantine generals problem nor super majority requirements for network security. so learn it..

but not from him because he will confuse you, as already proven.. he will tell you that consensus is not real, that network dont need to vote in a change and should not vote in a change. he will say blockchain data is not inportant and people should prune it. and all the other garbage he spouts of dismantling decentralisation so that only core get to control things

but take a few months to learn it for yourself from proper sources. the internet is your friend go search. code can be useful to learn. so learn it

coming for mine? nah. im hoarding for another decade or so (unless bitcoin network completely breaks utility ease).. (you know 'the burden of users using actual bitcoin' they hint at)

i see 2 paths for the "institutions"
if approved
a. blackrock becomes the defacto sole spot ETF where it has 'agents' managing baskets. where by grayscale, institutions and even binance become agents of blackrock. offering blackrock shares by these exchanges first selling their reserved btc to blackrock and then taking blackrocks share equivalents back as baskets of shares to then offer customers

b. blackrock sets precedence and everyone copies the template format which blackrock set, knowing it will get instant approval and loads of spot ETF's start up with their own share scheme.

in point A scenario institutions wont be buying coin they will be buying share baskets to then offer shares to institutions customers. where only blackrock does the buying/hoarding of coin. and institutions just give blackrock billions in fiat to buy baskets of shares

in point B scenario we see lots of institutions have their own trusts, buying clusters of coin to form their own baskets to then create share equivalents branded as each institutions share scheme.. however it then becomes a bigger cost/burden on their own regulation management and dilutes the whole offering by having competition. so i see scenario A being the more plausible route

blackhat. try not to recite doomad.. instead LEARN WHAT CONSENSUS IS AND HOW IT SOLVES THE BYZANTINE GENERALS problem to ensure that there WASNT a central point of failure(until core changed it and became the central point of failure)

there are actual discussion between the core devs of not wanting to rely on super majority activations
thers actual code that they made to bypass super majority

doomad escapes wanting to understand actual code and what core did. to instead pretend core deserve to be a central point of failure even though bitcoin is not suppose to have one

understand that having super majority readines of a upcoming feature before it activates is extra network security to actually have super majority of nodes ready to validate new features..

unlike the crap cludge of nodes that are "backward compatible" that just "isvalid" bypass checks to just let anything pass

coinbase offers a vault service
coinbase is the service provider and blackrock are the customer of coinbase vault.
coinbase is simply the vault(custodian) for blackrocks coins in trust

its not the same as the "partnership" coinbase has with grayscale

blackrock is simply a customer of coinbase

blackrock has been buying bitcoin for years
as long as users were happy when they sold their coin(at profit) then there is no problem

what i see as a problem is where blackrock is lobbying regulators to set up barriers of entry to make it difficult to purchase bitcoin direct (EG harder to open a coinbase/binance account to buy bitcoin because of all the hurdles needed to register with coinbase/binance) but instead have it too easy to open a blackrock account and buy their silly shares pegged at bitcoin prices. where blackrock owns the bitcoin stored in coinbase but users cant then redeem shares for bitcoin either.
and where if you buy a share for say a 2024 peg of say 0.025btc. in 2025 its pegged at 0.0245btc in 2026 its pegged at 0.024 and so on. the longer you hold the shares the less sats its pegged at