Bitwise’s NEAR ETF has the clearer product case based on the available figures: it charges a lower sponsor fee and has a documented trading history. Canary Capital’s staked INJ ETF may carry a different risk profile, but its launch status is unresolved in the records available, and its staking estimates are not directly comparable.
- Lower fee: NRR charges 0.75% annually; INJC’s stated fee is 1.10%.
- Yield needs context: Reward rates are not guaranteed shareholder returns, and the disclosed figures use different calculations.
- Status remains unclear: INJC’s listed inception date does not establish when trading began.
- Market-size figures are not liquidity data: Market capitalization and TVL do not show how easily large trades can be executed.
The figures below come from fund information and disclosures cited through November 5, 2026, as well as estimates attributed to Our Crypto Talk. Some market estimates lack a consistent timestamp. The available information also does not provide a complete, like-for-like comparison of fund returns, trading costs or liquidity.
Different products, different records
Bitwise’s NEAR ETF, ticker NRR, began trading on NYSE Arca on September 29, 2026. It holds NEAR and stakes some of its assets to earn network rewards.
Canary Capital’s Staked INJ ETF, ticker INJC, is designed to hold Injective tokens and stake at least 90% of its INJ under normal conditions. Canary’s product information lists November 4, 2026, as the fund’s inception date. But a November 5 post from Our Crypto Talk said Nasdaq had approved the listing while the fund’s S-1 registration statement was not yet effective, and that INJC was not trading.
An inception date alone does not prove that a fund began trading on that date. The information available here does not resolve the discrepancy or establish INJC’s trading status after November 5. Investors should check current fund and exchange information before treating it as an available product.
NRR’s stated annual sponsor fee is 0.75%, compared with 1.10% for INJC. That gives NEAR the edge on this particular cost, but the sponsor fee is only one factor that affects returns. Staking arrangements, other expenses, trading spreads and the timing of withdrawals can also matter. Comparable details on all of these factors are not available here.
Staking rates are not investor returns
Staking means committing eligible tokens to help support a proof-of-stake network in return for rewards. A fund’s realized results can differ from a network’s quoted reward rate. The difference can depend on the share of assets staked, reward-sharing arrangements, fees, operating costs and when staking and withdrawals take place.
For INJ, Our Crypto Talk uses a 7.5% gross staking yield and assumes that 30% of the rewards are deducted. On that basis, a fully staked portfolio would earn an estimated 5.25% after the reward deduction. Subtract INJC’s 1.10% sponsor fee, and the estimate falls to roughly 4.15%, before any other costs or effects.
If 90% of assets are staked, the same calculation starts with an estimated 6.75% gross portfolio yield: 7.5% multiplied by 90%. After the assumed 30% reward deduction, that comes to 4.725%. Subtracting the 1.10% sponsor fee leaves about 3.63%. These are illustrative estimates based on Our Crypto Talk’s assumptions, not a reported or promised fund yield.
Canary’s published net staking yield reportedly excludes the sponsor fee, which must be considered separately. The available information does not provide enough detail to reconcile every part of Canary’s yield calculation.
Bitwise’s November 2 disclosures report NRR’s gross reward rate at 4.98%, its net staking reward rate at 3.34%, and 94% of assets staked. The disclosures cited here do not provide enough detail about the net-rate calculation to make it directly comparable with the INJ estimate.
Our Crypto Talk also estimates a NEAR staking yield of about 5% and subtracts the 0.75% sponsor fee to arrive at roughly 4.2%. That simple subtraction is not a reported NRR return, and it does not match Bitwise’s disclosed 3.34% net reward rate on a clearly established, like-for-like basis. Investors should not treat either estimate as a reliable forecast of what fund shares will earn.
INJ also has a 21-day unbonding period, which is the time tokens may take to become available after staking is withdrawn. That can limit how quickly a fund can access staked tokens, including when it manages liquidity. The available information does not quantify the effect on INJC’s redemptions or day-to-day operations.
Market size and supply figures need careful reading
Our Crypto Talk estimates INJ’s market capitalization at about $800 million and NEAR’s at roughly $5.25 billion. It puts Injective’s total value locked, or TVL, at around $20 million, compared with more than $190 million for NEAR. TVL measures value committed to protocols in an ecosystem. It does not directly measure token liquidity or the depth of exchange order books.
A larger market capitalization or higher TVL does not prove that a token is easier to trade in large size. A smaller market does not, by itself, show that new fund demand will move a token more sharply. Without comparable data on trading volume, spreads and market depth, these figures cannot support a firm liquidity comparison or a prediction about price response.
Supply comparisons also depend on definitions and dates. Our Crypto Talk cites an INJ circulating supply of 100 million, with 47% staked. Canary’s November filing, meanwhile, describes ongoing INJ issuance and a total supply above 122 million as of September 15. Circulating supply and total supply are different measures, and the figures may also use different dates or methods. On their own, they do not settle whether or how a hard cap applies.
For NEAR, Our Crypto Talk cites a circulating supply of 1.31 billion, with 45% to 46% staked. The supplied information does not specify the date or methodology for those estimates. It also describes a governance update that reduces NEAR issuance. Lower issuance could reduce dilution, but changes to issuance may also affect staking rewards. The available figures do not quantify either effect.
Fund value, flows and seed commitments
Bitwise reported a 20.15% monthly decline in NRR’s NAV through October 30. NAV is the value of a fund’s assets per share, while AUM is the total value of assets managed by the fund. The reported figure is described as a NAV decline, but the available information does not clarify how it was calculated or establish that it represents a change in total assets.
Our Crypto Talk separately put NRR’s AUM at about $61 million and described its one-month NAV as down roughly 20%. Those figures come from its post and are not independently reconciled here.
Net inflows measure subscriptions minus withdrawals. AUM can change because of those flows and because the value of a fund’s holdings rises or falls. A fund can receive net subscriptions while its AUM declines if the underlying token price falls. A decline in AUM alone does not show how much investors withdrew.
Early NRR flow figures were described as showing a strong opening followed by withdrawals in early November, but exact amounts were not provided. There is not enough comparable information here to assess investor flows or realized returns for both funds over the same period.
The Injective Foundation planned to purchase up to $15 million in INJC seed shares. The available information does not establish the form of that commitment, so it should not be treated as evidence of $15 million in new cash purchases of INJ on the open market.
Key questions for investors
-
Was INJC trading on November 5, 2026?
The available information conflicts: Canary’s product details list a November 4 inception date, while a November 5 post says the S-1 was not effective and the fund was not trading. An inception date alone does not settle the question.
-
Which fund has the lower sponsor fee?
NRR’s annual fee is 0.75%, compared with 1.10% for INJC. This does not capture all costs or establish which fund will deliver the better return.
-
Are the staking rates directly comparable?
No. Bitwise reports a 3.34% net reward rate for NRR, while the INJ and NEAR figures from Our Crypto Talk are estimates based on stated assumptions. The available calculation details do not establish a like-for-like comparison.
-
Do market capitalization and TVL show which token is more liquid?
No. They measure different things and do not reveal exchange spreads or market depth. Comparable trading data would be needed to assess liquidity.
Which has the clearer product case?
Based on the information available, NRR is easier to assess. It has an established trading record in the period covered, a lower sponsor fee and staking figures disclosed by Bitwise. Those features do not make it low-risk. The reported NAV decline is a reminder that fund shares remain exposed to crypto-market volatility.
INJC’s stated structure offers staked INJ exposure, but its higher sponsor fee, 21-day unbonding period and yield estimates based on assumptions make comparisons harder. Its trading status also remains unresolved in the records cited here. The supply figures need careful reading: the cited 100 million circulating-supply estimate is not the same measure as Canary’s reported total supply above 122 million.
NEAR has the clearer product case on these limited measures, but that does not guarantee better performance. A sound comparison would also need verified current trading status for INJC, consistent net-return calculations, and comparable information on fund costs, trading conditions and realized performance. Bitwise’s launch announcement identifies NRR as the first U.S. spot NEAR ETP.
