BlackRock now runs two Ethereum funds, and one of them pays you cash. Its iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB) stakes part of its ether and passes rewards to holders, yet investors still poured far more money into the plain ETHA fund on September 11, 2026.
Here is the simple version. BlackRock’s staking Ethereum ETF earns extra rewards by staking, then shares some of that as monthly cash. But its older, larger sibling fund keeps winning the daily inflow race. For related coverage, see Two Ethereum Bridges Lose $31.7M in Hours as Third Protocol Halts Staking.
This story separates four things that often get mixed up: cash distributions, staking reward rates, fund size, and net inflows. Each measures something different. For related coverage, see Ethereum Foundation Unstakes 17,035 ETH Worth About $40 Million.
How BlackRock’s staking Ethereum ETF pays income
The staking fund is the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB). It seeks ether-price exposure plus rewards from staking a portion of its ether, and it lists its distribution frequency as monthly. For related coverage, see Bitwise Solana Staking ETF Approved as Loan Collateral at 25% LTV.
Staking means locking up crypto to help run and secure a blockchain, which earns rewards in return. ETHB stakes some of its ether and can pass those rewards to shareholders as cash.
Its most recent payment was a total distribution of $0.036487 per share, with a record and ex-date of September 9, 2026, and a payable date of September 10, 2026. This is a listed cash distribution, not a guaranteed annual yield or a confirmed tax classification as income.
ETHB cash distribution per share
$0.036487
Earlier payments show the cash amount varies. ETHB listed distributions of $0.015237 payable June 9, $0.032059 payable July 10, and $0.032499 payable August 11, 2026. The payout is not a fixed number.
Do not confuse that cash with the fund’s reward rate. ETHB reports a 30-day Staking Rewards Rate of 1.52% as of September 11, 2026. That issuer label is not the same thing as the September cash-distribution yield.
Fees also differ slightly from the headline number. ETHB’s stated sponsor fee is 0.25%, but a temporary waiver reduces it to 0.12% on the first $2.5 billion of assets for 12 months starting March 12, 2026. Assets above that threshold pay 0.25%, with the same weighted-average rate applied to all investors. Similar income mechanics appear in other products, such as the Bitwise Solana staking ETF.
ETHA attracts more inflows despite the staking income feature
Net inflows measure new money entering a fund on a given day. On September 11, 2026, Farside’s data shows ETHA took in $148.8 million versus $18.3 million for ETHB. The income-paying fund lost the daily flow race by a wide margin.
Fund size explains part of the gap. ETHA held net assets of $8,959,608,478 as of September 11, 2026, and lists no regular distribution frequency. It is roughly nine times larger than the staking fund.
By contrast, ETHB reported net assets of $1,051,809,438 on the same date. Net assets measure how big a fund is, which is different from how much new money arrives in a single day.
ETHB net assets as of September 11, 2026
$1,051,809,438
The daily ranking is not fixed, though. On September 10, 2026, ETHA saw $18.6 million in net outflows while ETHB pulled in $13.9 million. The smaller fund won that session.
Over a longer window the picture splits. Across the eight reported trading sessions from September 1 to 11, ETHA drew $216.4 million in net inflows versus $136.9 million for ETHB. ETHA led in total dollars, but ETHB actually won more individual days, four sessions to three, with one tie.
Both funds also trade tightly, so liquidity is close. ETHA’s 30-day median bid/ask spread was 0.05% versus 0.06% for ETHB as of September 11, 2026. The difference between buying and selling prices is small in each case.
What the inflow gap says about demand for staking income
A single day of heavier inflows into ETHA does not prove investors reject staking income. Flows show where money went, not why people chose one fund. They also do not show individual investors moving between the two products.
Fund history and size are plausible reasons ETHA leads, given its roughly $9 billion base and established trading. But the research here does not attribute the gap to any single cause, and no expert commentary was verified for this story.
CryptoSlate, which reported the September 11 comparison, framed it as evidence that staking income has not yet displaced ETHA’s liquidity advantage, while cautioning that flows do not prove investor rotation. That reading fits the mixed daily data above.
Keep income and total return separate. A cash distribution is not the same as coming out ahead, because total return also depends on ether’s price. Neither fund is automatically the better choice just because it pays yield or attracts more inflows.
For wider context, ether traded at $2,567.99, up about 2.4% over 24 hours, with a market cap near $312.9 billion on September 14, 2026. That snapshot is background only and should not be read as caused by the payout or the earlier flows.
Broad market mood was mildly positive too. The crypto Fear & Greed Index read 57, or “Greed,” on September 14, 2026, a general sentiment gauge rather than an ETH-specific survey.
One structural note for newcomers: both trusts are not registered investment companies under the 1940 Act and are not commodity pools under the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in staking products has grown alongside a record Ethereum staking ratio, and BlackRock’s flow split shows how newer income features are being tested against established funds.
Practical takeaway: If you hold or are eyeing these funds, know the difference between a monthly cash payment, a staking reward rate, fund size, and daily inflows. One good flow day for ETHA does not settle whether staking income wins over time.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
