Anyone who wants Bitcoin in a securities account has three routes available in Germany: the coin itself through a crypto exchange, an exchange-traded security tracking Bitcoin, that is an ETN
Anyone who wants Bitcoin in a securities account has three routes available in Germany: the coin itself through a crypto exchange, an exchange-traded security tracking Bitcoin, that is an ETN, and a certificate issued by a bank. All three move with the same price. What separates them is the question of who owns the Bitcoin, who owes you the money if things go wrong, and which section of the tax code the tax office applies to your gain.
The price is the smallest difference. Bitcoin traded at $85,543 and €76,040 on Wednesday morning, down 0.43 percent on the previous day, according to CoinGecko as of 03:00 on Wednesday. That figure sits inside all three products. The gap opens up afterwards: in the tax treatment, in the costs, and in the question of what happens if the provider becomes insolvent.
Both are debt securities, both trade on an exchange, and both sit in an ordinary securities account. They are still two different things.
An ETN (exchange traded note) is an exchange-traded debt security that tracks exactly one underlying, here the Bitcoin price, and that is backed by real Bitcoin at the common European providers. The term is usually open-ended, there is no leverage, and the ratio to the underlying stays the same over the years, less the ongoing fee.
A certificate is the umbrella term for structured securities issued by a bank that promise a payout according to a formula fixed in advance. That formula can be simple, but it can also contain leverage, a knock-out barrier or a fixed maturity. Backing with real Bitcoin is not part of it.
In practice this means an ETN is built for holding over the long run, a leveraged certificate for short phases. Lump the two together as a “Bitcoin product” and it is easy to buy the wrong one.
All three abbreviations turn up on the providers' product pages. ETP (exchange traded product) is the collective term for every exchange-traded product of this kind. ETN is the sub-form structured as a debt security, ETC (exchange traded commodity) the label that originally emerged for commodities such as gold and that some issuers also use for crypto assets. In legal terms, European crypto ETPs are almost always bearer debt securities, whichever of the three letter codes appears in the product name.
A bearer debt security is a security under which the issuer owes the holder a payment or a delivery. That is the decisive sentence about every Bitcoin ETN: you do not own Bitcoin, you own a claim against the issuer.
The large European providers soften that by backing the notes they issue with real Bitcoin and storing those coins with a separate custodian. Many products also grant the investor a redemption right, meaning the right to demand the deposited coins instead of cash. Both are set out in the key information document and in the terms of issue, and both differ from product to product.
What does not arise here is segregated fund assets. A fund holds investors' money legally separate from the fund company's own assets, and that is precisely the protection a debt security does not provide. In its place comes the collateral, which is promised by contract and not guaranteed by law.
The United States has Bitcoin spot ETFs, the European Union does not, and the reason is a sober one rooted in fund law. An ETF for retail investors falls under the UCITS rules in the EU, and those rules require diversification: no single component may account for more than 20 percent of net asset value. A fund holding nothing but Bitcoin reaches 100 percent and therefore cannot be authorised.
That is why every European Bitcoin product you can hold with a German broker is not a fund but a debt security. Search engines may suggest a Bitcoin ETF, but in Germany the search inevitably ends at ETNs and ETPs. Which of these products trade on German exchanges and what matters in picking one is covered in the overview of crypto ETFs in Germany.
There is a side effect for savings plans and retirement provision: because it is not a fund, some custodian banks treat crypto ETPs differently from ETFs, for instance in savings plans, in lending against securities or inside managed portfolios. That is not a question of the price but of your provider's house rules.
In legal terms an ETN is a promise made by the issuer, not a share in segregated fund assets.
Two designs are particularly common among certificates on Bitcoin, and both behave markedly differently from an ETN.
A knock-out certificate works with a fixed barrier. If the price touches that barrier, the note expires and the amount invested is gone, even if the price climbs again an hour later. The leverage follows from the distance between price and barrier, so it is not constant.
A factor certificate, by contrast, keeps leverage constant by resetting daily against the closing price. In choppy sideways phases that produces a loss in value even if the Bitcoin price is back at its starting point by the end of the week. The effect is called path dependency, and it is regularly underestimated.
For both designs the same holds: the certificate is likewise a debt security of the issuing bank, only without coins deposited behind it. Issuer risk is therefore added to market risk, and with leveraged products comes the possibility that the stake is wiped out entirely while the underlying still exists. Anyone looking to trade leveraged products on crypto assets will find the providers' terms in the crypto broker comparison.
The third route runs through a crypto exchange and ideally ends in a wallet of your own. Self-custody means you keep the private key to your coins yourself and no company stands between you and the balance. The seed phrase is the sequence of words from which that key can be restored.
Issuer risk disappears entirely at that point. There is nobody who could become insolvent, because nobody owes you anything. Other risks take its place, and they are not smaller: a lost device with no backup, a seed phrase somebody else finds, a contract approved by mistake in a wallet app. None of these risks can be passed on to a third party.
In between sits the case most newcomers actually choose: the coins stay on the exchange. You then do own real Bitcoin, but not the keys, and you depend on a company again, this time on one that needs authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider under the European MiCA regulation. Whether a trading venue holds that authorisation can be looked up in the supervisor's public register, and that is exactly what belongs before the first deposit.
Issuer risk is the danger that the issuer of a security cannot meet its obligation. With a crypto ETN it is the central factor, because in legal terms the note is nothing other than that obligation.
Physical backing is meant to limit the damage. The issuer buys real Bitcoin for every note issued, has it stored with an independent custodian and pledges it in favour of the investors. In an insolvency that holding is meant to go to the noteholders first rather than to the other creditors. In practice the effect hinges on three points you can look up in the key information document: whether the backing is complete, who the custodian is, and whether a trust structure has been inserted in between.
None of the three routes comes with deposit insurance. The statutory protection of €100,000 per customer and bank applies to balances in accounts, not to securities and not to crypto assets. Confuse the two and you will think a note is safer than it is.
This is where the difference that adds up to the largest amount over the years sits. ETNs and certificates are securities, and their gains count as investment income under Section 20 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). A separate tax rate applies to that income: under Section 32d (1) sentence 1 EStG, income tax on it is 25 percent. On top comes the solidarity surcharge, which under Section 4 of the Solidarity Surcharge Act amounts to 5.5 percent of the tax. Together that makes 26.375 percent, slightly more for those liable to church tax.
This system knows no holding period. Whether you hold the ETN for three weeks or eleven years makes no difference to the rate. The tax is usually withheld directly by the institution holding the account, and you will find it in the settlement statement.
Relief comes only from the saver's allowance. Under Section 20 (9) EStG, €1,000 a year is deductible, and €2,000 jointly for married couples filing together. That amount covers all investment income together, interest and dividends included, and it is used up quickly.
One advantage of the securities form remains: losses on ETNs can be offset against other investment income, and the bank runs the loss-offset pot automatically. With directly held coins you have to track that yourself in your tax return.
In the finance ministry's draft, December 31, 2026 separates the protected existing holdings from everything bought after that date.
Directly held Bitcoin runs under a different section. Such coins count as other assets within the meaning of a private disposal transaction, and Section 23 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 EStG only captures transactions “in which the period between acquisition and disposal does not exceed one year”. Hold for more than a year and then sell, and no income tax is due on the gain.
Within that year the personal tax rate applies, running from zero to 45 percent depending on income, rather than the flat 26.375 percent. On a high income, selling coins short term is therefore more expensive than the same gain inside an ETN; on a low income it is cheaper.
There is also a threshold that is frequently misquoted. Section 23 (3) sentence 5 EStG states: “Gains remain tax-free if the total gain realised from private disposal transactions in the calendar year was less than 1,000 euros.” That is an exemption threshold, not an allowance. If the total gain is exactly €1,000, the full amount is taxable, not just the euro above the line.
For the order in which coins are deemed sold, the allocation is decisive, in practice usually on the principle that the holdings bought first count as sold first. Anyone who has bought in tranches over several years needs a clean record of every single purchase for that.
This coexistence of two tax systems is not meant to last. On September 30, 2026, the Federal Ministry of Finance published its draft bill on reforming the taxation of certain privately held crypto assets. According to the ministry's explanatory memorandum, the current classification under other income no longer does justice to crypto markets that have grown since; the draft is in interdepartmental consultation, and consideration by the cabinet is planned.
In substance, gains on crypto assets are to count as investment income in future. The one-year holding period would fall away, and the same rate that already applies to ETNs would take effect. Several tax firms read a grandfathering provision out of the draft in the same way: the new rules are to cover only crypto assets acquired after December 31, 2026, while the current holding period continues to apply to holdings bought earlier.
Two caveats belong with that. A ministerial draft is not a law, and deadlines and details can still change during the legislative process. And even if it arrives as drafted, it bears on today's purchase decision: purchases made by the end of the year would fall into the protected existing holdings, purchases after that would not.
As long as the holding period stands, the directly held coin has the clear tax advantage for long-term holding. If it falls away for new acquisitions, that lead shrinks to the differences in costs, custody and loss offsetting. Anyone making a decision today for the years ahead should run the numbers on both situations, not only on today's.
The details sit in two documents every issuer has to publish: the key information document and the terms of issue. Both are reachable through the product page and through the exchange page for the security.
With a certificate the formula components come on top: knock-out barrier, leverage, subscription ratio and maturity date. A note whose payout formula you cannot explain in a single sentence does not belong in a portfolio.
The costs of the three routes arise in different places, and that makes the comparison hard at first glance.
With an ETN there is an ongoing management fee that the issuer takes pro rata out of the deposited holding. You will see no statement for it; the effect sits inside the price of the note. On top come your broker's order fee, the spread between bid and ask on the exchange and, depending on the provider, a custody charge.
Buying directly, you pay the exchange's trading fee, a spread again, and a network fee when withdrawing to a wallet of your own. There is no ongoing annual fee; anyone choosing self-custody has the cost of buying a hardware wallet instead.
With a certificate, the order fee and the spread are often joined by a financing component that accrues daily on leveraged products and weighs heavily over longer holding periods. The actual rates change and differ widely; they sit in the key information document for the particular note and are to be looked up there before buying.
As a rule of thumb over long periods: ongoing fees act like a headwind that blows equally hard every year, while one-off costs lose weight the longer you hold.
The three routes lead to the same price and to very different obligations. This order helps with the decision.
The sentence that holds it all together: with an ETN and a certificate you carry the risk of a company and get convenient settlement in your securities account; with the coin you carry responsibility for the key and keep the holding period for now. Which of these two burdens sits more easily with you is the real question.
(As of October 7, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)
