Manages over 11 trillion dollars in assets,
The world's second-largest asset management giant with 50 million clients,
Why enter Bitcoin now? What incremental funds can it bring? What are the risks?

Two years ago, Vanguard stated that 'Bitcoin is not in the best interest of clients.'

But just on the 2nd, it suddenly reversed its position and reopened the doors to crypto.

$BTC surged 6%, rising from $85,000 to $93,000.

BlackRock's IBIT opened with 30 minutes, trading volume exceeded 1 billion dollars.

Everyone is asking: Why enter now? What buying volume can it bring?

Vanguard manages $11 trillion in assets, but it never chases the market.

When this giant, known for its 'long-termism' and 'conservatism', changes its stance, I believe what happens is definitely not just 'another institution buying BTC'.

---------------------------------------------------

01 | What happened on December 2?

First, let's look at the timeline.

Q2 2023
Vanguard publicly stated that 'Bitcoin is not in the best interest of clients' and completely banned clients from purchasing any crypto ETFs.

January 2024
BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin ETF was approved for listing, but Vanguard refused to list it and continued to maintain the ban.

All of 2024
Even if BTC rises from $40,000 to $110,000, it remains indifferent.

November 2025
Bank of America (BofA) begins training advisors internally to teach how to allocate crypto assets for clients.

December 2, 2025
Vanguard suddenly reversed its stance, announcing the reopening of crypto ETFs for its 50 million clients.

On the same day, Bank of America allowed 15,000 advisors to recommend a 1-4% allocation of crypto assets to clients.

The market reacted immediately,

BTC surged from $85,000 to $93,000, IBIT's trading volume broke $1 billion in 30 minutes, and Coinbase's institutional recharge volume surged 420%.

Now the question arises, Vanguard is not a speculative institution; it never chases the market.
What has shaken its judgment from the past decade?

---------------------------------------------------

02 | Why is Vanguard's shift more important than BlackRock's?

To understand this, one must see the essential differences between the two institutions.

BlackRock: a profit-driven institution managing $13.46 trillion, with a model of 'profit-seeking', where funds flow to where there are gains.

After the approval of the Bitcoin ETF, it launched IBIT within 24 hours, which is a business action.

Vanguard: an institution based on belief, this company is completely different.

Its founder, John Bogle, proposed the idea that 'fund companies should serve the interests of clients, not Wall Street'.

Thus Vanguard adopted a unique structure in the world: it is not a stock company, but a client-owned mutual cooperative.

This means: no external shareholders; no need to chase profits; not catering to market fads; all products centered around 'long-term value'.

Look at its past choices:
- During the hedge fund boom, it refused to participate.
- During the high-frequency trading era, it stuck to index funds.
- When ESG became a trend on Wall Street, it maintained a prudent attitude.

Vanguard's logic can be summed up in one sentence:

"New assets must prove long-term value; otherwise, they will not be included in the allocation."

This is why its shift is ten times more important than BlackRock's.

BlackRock's entry is a business opportunity. Vanguard's entry is a recognition of value.

This means: the traditional financial system has officially recognized that crypto assets have 'long-term allocation value'.

---------------------------------------------------

03 | What does 50 million clients + $11 trillion AUM mean?

Let's do some math.

Vanguard: 50 million clients; $11 trillion AUM; average assets of about $220,000 per person.

These are not speculative traders in crypto, but rather: American middle-class families; pension investors; long-term holders of 401(k)s.

Their behavior patterns are extremely stable: 70% of assets are in index funds; annual turnover frequency is only 0.3 times; average holding period exceeds 10 years.

This is completely different from the 'nature of funds' in the crypto space.

Let's consider three scenario analyses:

Scenario 1 | Conservative allocation of 1%

10% client allocation:
50 million × 10% × $220,000 × 1% = $11 billion.

Scenario 2 | Standard allocation of 3%

20% client allocation:
50 million × 20% × $220,000 × 3% = $66 billion.

Scenario 3 | Aggressive allocation of 5%

30% client allocation:
50 million × 30% × $220,000 × 5% = $165 billion.

Comparison:
IBIT attracted $30 billion in the entire previous year.
Vanguard's single channel potential is 2-20 times that.

Moreover, the nature of these funds is: ten years without movement, not chasing the market, and no panic selling.

This means Bitcoin has finally welcomed: truly long-term institutional funds.

It will reshape the entire crypto market's price structure and volatility logic.

---------------------------------------------------

04 | Historical comparison: the 'gold ETF moment' of 2004

History is rhyming.

In 2004, the world's first gold ETF: GLD was listed.

At that time, gold was $442. It rose to $730 after 18 months.

From 2008 to 2011, it rose from $765 to $1,922.

An increase of 151%.

The reason is simple: traditional institutions began to include gold ETFs in their standard allocations.

Bitcoin is now entering the same path.
Phase 1 (2024): IBIT approval allows Bitcoin into traditional finance.
Phase 2 (2025): Vanguard's entry allows Bitcoin into standard allocations.
Phase 3 (now and future): central banks and sovereign funds allocate digital assets.

This is what happened to gold after 2010. Now it's Bitcoin's turn.

---------------------------------------------------

05 | Three overlooked risks

Vanguard's entry brings not just benefits, but three major risks.

Risk 1: Liquidity mismatch

Vanguard clients if certain that it is 'buy and hold' funds.

A large amount of BTC will be locked, leading to: decreased tradable liquidity, more severe short-term volatility, and increased risk for high-leverage accounts.

Reduced liquidity means that the same funds will cause greater price volatility.

Risk 2: Policy exposure magnification

When the U.S. regulators issue any new regulations:
- Digital asset taxes
- ETF holding limits
- Changes in accounting standards for crypto assets

Vanguard cannot bypass and must enforce strictly. This will expose BTC more directly to policy fluctuations.

Risk 3: Cognitive inertia trap

The biggest risk comes from the traders themselves: 'Traditional institutions are all in, it’s safe.'

This is incorrect.

The 2000 Internet bubble: all of Wall Street entered, and then the Nasdaq fell 78%.

The 2008 financial crisis: century-old institutions collapsed, and liquidity evaporated instantly.

Vanguard's entry is not a 'safety signal', but a 'phase transition signal'.

Volatility will increase, not decrease.

---------------------------------------------------

06 | A few pieces of advice

In the face of future market changes, three points are most important.

First, recalibrate the time scale.

The market has transitioned from 'cyclical gaming' to a 'ten-year holding' era. Short-term volatility may be fiercer, but long-term trends will be steadier.

Second, pay attention to policy, not just prices.

From now on: SEC statements; Congressional legislation; risk exposure in the U.S. banking system.

The importance of these factors is no less than on-chain data.

Third, stay aware.

Institutional entry is not a signal of a bull market bottom, but a signal of changes in participation funds and scale. Understanding this is more important than being bullish.

In this market, surviving is always more important than making money.

---------------------------------------------------

Vanguard's entry is not a climax, nor an endpoint,
What we can do is to remain engaged while the trend has not yet been fully understood by everyone.