The potential risks of institutions flocking to buy cryptocurrency assets

In the past few months, the widespread rise of crypto assets is not only related to the U.S. government's continuous favorable policies for crypto assets and the crypto ecosystem but also to the rush of publicly listed companies buying crypto assets.

The former is a long-term factor that benefits this ecosystem, while the latter is a direct driver of rising coin prices. I have always been very cautious about the latter because it not only hinders investors from buying at low levels but also easily accumulates bubbles and risks in the short term.

The rush of publicly listed companies to buy crypto assets started with Bitcoin. Leading the way was MicroStrategy, which quickly spread to other listed companies.

Subsequently, this trend expanded to Ethereum. First, Ethereum co-founders raised funds in the name of listed companies to purchase Ethereum, and then Wall Street firms represented by Tom Lee joined the buying spree, attracting new companies to continuously join the "battle."

At the same time that listed companies began purchasing Ethereum, the founder of Animoca Brands started posting on Twitter, hinting at whether companies would imitate the first two by targeting the Bored Ape's ApeCoin for similar operations. Soon, news emerged that the token PENGU of the Fat Penguin was being heavily acquired.

The previous operations were only targeting tokens, but since last weekend, funds have started to focus on classic NFTs: over the weekend, large funds spent $13 million in one go to buy CryptoPunks, and other funds bulk purchased classic NFT artworks like Squiggles.

This week, Gamesquare publicly announced the establishment of a treasury fund to purchase NFTs, with an initial fund amount of $10 million, expecting a return rate of 6% - 10%.

What I focus on in these operations is whether they are long-term strategies or short-term fads. If they are long-term operations, it will definitely benefit the development of the ecosystem and assets in the long run, at least providing a relatively solid price foundation for the assets. However, if they are short-term fads, then their rush will increase asset volatility and bring significant chaos to the market at some point in the future.

Among these companies, MicroStrategy is one we are very familiar with; this veteran has experienced several Bitcoin cycles and has remained loyal to Bitcoin even at the bottom of the bear market. Michael Saylor has also stated that he has no children and plans to follow Satoshi Nakamoto's example by permanently locking away the Bitcoin he holds. This is a very solid foundation.

The operation of the Ethereum co-founders is a new move, and how it performs in the bear market remains to be seen. However, at least from his current statements, I tend to believe that his actions are strategically holding Ethereum, considering the long term rather than short-term operations.

From Tom Lee's current statements, I agree with some of his fundamental views, but I can also see that he carries a style from Wall Street that I do not like.

Therefore, among the companies buying Bitcoin and Ethereum, I only consider the operations of the three companies mentioned above to be based on their understanding of the ecosystem; for other companies, I believe they are likely just following the trend. They see that injecting crypto assets into shell companies can quickly boost the stock prices of junk stocks in the short term, and thus they rush to imitate.

As for the bulk purchases of NFTs, it is even more complex.

The downside of NFTs is that they are far less liquid than tokens; the advantage is that once the atmosphere picks up, their price increases may far exceed those of general tokens.

So the more suitable approach for these assets is to buy quietly, slowly, and hold long-term, which may lead to substantial profits. However, the current high-profile promotion and actions do not seem to reflect a long-term holding attitude.

If we set aside the actions of purchasing funds and look solely at the fundamentals of these assets, I feel that they have basically not undergone any fundamental changes, or at least not at this moment.

Bitcoin does not require fundamental changes, so it is indifferent.

However, Ethereum does require fundamental changes, especially an explosion of application scenarios to support a sustained rise in coin prices. But currently, whether it is stablecoins, RWA, or AI + Crypto, despite some minor applications, I do not see any systemic or large-scale explosions at the ecosystem level; it mainly remains speculative expectations.

In the NFT space, CryptoPunks and NFT artworks are similar to Bitcoin in that they do not require fundamental changes; however, Fat Penguins and Bored Apes are different; they do require fundamental changes and an explosion of application scenarios. Currently, there is also no sign of an explosion in their application scenarios.

Overall, this round of companies rushing to buy crypto assets, whether tokens or NFTs, seems to involve a lot of operations that are accumulating risks. In the short term, the rising coin prices bring joy to all, but if the fundamentals and application scenarios do not explode, one day when speculative expectations cannot be fulfilled or maintained, the collapse of coin prices may also become as dramatic as the current surge in prices.