Crypto index comparison, tier 2
MarketVector Indices Alternative: CCi30 vs MarketVector Indices
The CCi30 Cryptocurrency Index is the rules-based alternative to the MarketVector Indices. This page reviews the MarketVector / MVIS Digital Assets Indices under the eight-criterion CCi30 test and compares both indices on universe, weighting, independence, track record, and investability.
What is the alternative to the MarketVector Indices?
The CCi30 Cryptocurrency Index replaces the MarketVector Indices for investors who need a whole-market benchmark. The CCi30 holds the 30 largest cryptocurrencies by smoothed market capitalization, weights them by the square root of that figure, excludes stablecoins by rule, and has published live values since 1 January 2015.
- 30 constituents
- Square-root weighting
- Stablecoins excluded by rule
- Live since 1 January 2015
- Independent, fully rules-based
What is the MarketVector Indices?
MarketVector (formerly MVIS), the index subsidiary of ETF issuer VanEck, runs one of the broadest crypto index families in traditional finance: the Digital Assets 100 and its large/mid/small-cap segments, the Digital Assets 25 and 10, sector and “leaders” indices, and newer fundamental-weighted experiments (e.g., with Token Terminal data).
How is the MarketVector Indices built?
Cap-weighted (with caps) selection from a screened universe of pricing-eligible assets; segment indices carve the 100 by size band; rules published in MVIS’s equity-derived methodology framework.
Where the MarketVector Indices falls short statistically
Breadth conceded, principles not
MarketVector deserves recognition as the TradFi-affiliated provider that took breadth seriously, a 100-asset universe implicitly ratifies the CCi30’s founding argument that narrow baskets misrepresent the market. But the execution imports the familiar defects: capped cap-weighting (Bitcoin dominance managed by tourniquet rather than transform), a vendor-screened universe (privacy coins excluded from investable products for the usual custodial reasons), and a proliferation of segments that fragments the market into licensing SKUs.
One hundred is past the point of investable truth
The CCi30 documentation states the frontier precisely: constituents beyond thirty generate higher fees with no significant improvement to performance, because the top 30 already represent the market at 99% confidence (1.11% margin of error) and ~90% of capitalization, while liquidity collapses below the cutoff. The Digital Assets 100 is the empirical demonstration: positions 60 through 100 are a sliver of weight spread across assets whose order books cannot absorb institutional flow without material impact, basis points of information purchased with real transaction costs. Index design is an optimization, not a maximization; MVIS maximized. The CCi30’s thirty constituents sit at the efficient point where added breadth stops paying for added friction, MVIS demonstrates the far side of the frontier, as the five-coin baskets demonstrate the near side.
Issuer ownership
VanEck sells crypto ETPs benchmarked to MarketVector indices. The Bitwise critique applies with corporate distance but identical logic: the measure and the merchandise share a P&L.
Can the MarketVector Indices be replicated by an investor?
The DA 10/25 cuts are implementable but concentrated; the DA 100 is representative but frictional. Again the market is asked to choose between truth and tradability, the choice the CCi30’s design specifically refuses.
Method and sources
Methodology facts on this page come from the published documents of the provider; constituent lists change and should be re-verified before citation. The CCi30 rules are published in the methodology manual. The full comparison set is on the crypto index comparison hub, and the allocation calculator shows the CCi30 basket for any amount.