"On one hand, there's skepticism; on the other, there's buying!" Recently, institutional attitudes towards crypto assets have presented a stark contrast: while trillion-dollar asset management giant Vanguard has launched Bitcoin spot ETF trading, its global head of quantitative equities has publicly compared Bitcoin to a "digital Labubu" (a trendy toy), questioning its investment value; while Bank of America has given the complete opposite advice, suggesting its wealth management clients allocate 1%-4% of their portfolios to digital assets. This huge divergence between institutions has left ordinary investors confused: who should they believe? Do Bitcoin and other crypto assets truly have long-term investment value? Today, I'll share my exclusive perspective by analyzing the logic behind institutional behavior.
First, analyze the core reasons why Vanguard questions the value of Bitcoin. As a traditional asset management giant, Vanguard's investment logic is 'value investing,' focusing on cash flow and intrinsic value of assets. However, Bitcoin, as a decentralized digital asset, lacks backing by physical assets and does not generate cash flow, which contradicts Vanguard's traditional investment philosophy. In addition, Bitcoin's price is extremely volatile, falling from $126,000 to $88,000 in 2025, a drop of over 30%, making such high volatility difficult for traditional institutions seeking stable returns to accept. My view is that Vanguard's skepticism is essentially a clash between traditional financial thinking and new thinking about crypto assets; it does not mean that Bitcoin lacks investment value, but rather that its investment logic differs from that of traditional assets.
Next, let's look at the logic behind Bank of America's recommendation to allocate digital assets, which is worth the attention of ordinary investors. As one of the world's top commercial banks, Bank of America's recommendations are often based on judgments of market trends. Bank of America believes that crypto assets, as an emerging asset class, have lower correlation with traditional assets, and allocating a certain proportion of digital assets can effectively diversify the risk of the investment portfolio. From the data, the correlation between Bitcoin and traditional assets such as stocks and bonds is indeed low; when traditional assets decline, crypto assets may perform differently, serving a 'hedging' role. Furthermore, with the launch of Bitcoin spot ETFs and the improvement of regulations, the compliance and liquidity of crypto assets are continually increasing, making them suitable for inclusion in mainstream investment portfolios.
So how should ordinary investors view the differences among institutions? My suggestion is: do not blindly follow the views of any one institution, but learn to analyze the logic behind institutional behaviors, and make decisions based on your own risk tolerance and investment goals. Specifically, you can start from three aspects: First, clarify your investment cycle: if it is a short-term investment (within one year), it is recommended to focus on macro policies and market sentiment, as the short-term views of institutions have certain reference value; if it is a long-term investment (over three years), then pay attention to the technological innovations and practical applications of crypto assets, and do not be influenced by short-term institutional views. Second, assess your risk tolerance: the high volatility of crypto assets means high risk; if you cannot bear the risk of an asset falling more than 10% in a single day, it is recommended to allocate a small amount or not at all; if you can tolerate higher risk and have enough patience, you can appropriately increase your allocation ratio. Third, diversify the assets preferred by different institutions: allocate both the core crypto assets recommended by Bank of America and the low-risk assets recognized by traditional institutions, reducing the risk of a single asset through diversified investment.
Now, let me share a 'institutional trend tracking technique' to help everyone better grasp market trends. First, pay attention to changes in institutional holdings: by looking at the capital inflow data of Bitcoin spot ETFs, institutional holding reports, etc., see whether institutions are increasing or decreasing their holdings in crypto assets; for example, the recent capital inflow into Bitcoin spot ETFs shows a 'periodic recovery,' indicating that some institutions are still continuously positioning themselves. Second, analyze the investment logic of institutions: different institutions have different investment logics; for instance, hedge funds focus more on arbitrage opportunities arising from short-term volatility, while pension funds emphasize long-term value, so it is essential to choose reference points based on your own investment goals. Third, be wary of 'inconsistencies' in institutions: some institutions may publicly question the value of crypto assets, but privately position themselves through related accounts, so it is necessary to use on-chain data and other tools to observe the institutions' real trading behaviors.
Finally, I remind everyone: institutional views can only serve as a reference and cannot replace one's own independent judgment. The crypto market is an emerging market, full of uncertainties, but it also contains huge opportunities. What ordinary investors need to do is to continuously learn about crypto knowledge and improve their analytical abilities, rather than blindly rely on institutional advice. In the future, I will continue to track institutional movements in Binance Square, interpret the deeper logic behind institutional views, and help everyone make more rational investment decisions. Follow me @链上标哥 to avoid getting lost! Let me help you see the investment opportunities under institutional competition!
