Bitcoin promised decentralization and global reach. With 17+ years of history and its long-term survival no longer in doubt, what does on the ground adoption look like and can anyone truly offer a global Bitcoin product?
For self-custody wallet builders the answer is probably yes, but most Bitcoiners are looking for broader utility – and that depends a lot more on where the end user is located.
In short, the ideal customer profile looks very different for someone living in New York City compared to Buenos Aires.
Consider the use case of someone in both those locations looking to borrow against their bitcoin (a use case I think about a lot given my background). The New York borrower is more likely to draw against their stack to buy more bitcoin or fund a venture; the Buenos Aires borrower draws to pay rent in a collapsing currency.
The same product (ie. a Bitcoin loan) will land very differently in those two locations. I would argue that you get to a similar outcome for payments and ‘yield’ use cases.
Layer on top local regulation (hello KYC and AML compliance for US/EU lenders) and switching costs (how difficult is it to send money using tradfi rails or earn a few percent on your balance today) in those jurisdictions, and the question of where funds are flowing inevitably leads to where the end user is located.
Returning to Bitcoin lending specifically (I will explore the payments and yield use cases in another article) it is therefore prudent to address TAM, SAM and SOM on a continental and country level.
This is especially important for a startup with early signs of product-market fit looking to raise funds with a cohesive expansion plan, but even the big established operators have had to consider this carefully.
Ledn is currently migrating its US customers to a new US-compliant entity1. Strike’s lending product – on the other hand – was built for US borrowers and is ahead of Ledn in that market, but arguably the roles are reversed in Europe. (And both companies release features at the state level in the US – geography shapes the product even within one country.)
I recognize that getting your product into the hands of as many people as quickly as possible is a must-win race. Winning it always hangs on a solid GTM strategy that is location-specific.
I speak with companies and founders about exactly this, and the first question is always where the customers are. Because a great product with poor GTM will always underperform a worse product with a better localized strategy.
Bitcoin gave us the opportunity to build products with truly global reach. But to beat the tradfi incumbents, remember: while capital may be borderless, the product strategy never is.
AI is quietly dissolving the walls between company functions. Sales can write product specs. Developers speak fluent “commercial-ese.” Everyone’s more empowered, more informed, more capable. So who’s actually steering the ship?
A thought piece by a product peer1 fueled my thinking here. They describe scenarios where the decision owner is fuzzy and product debt quietly builds up, often without anyone realizing it.
Winding back a notch, my interpretation of coherence is how you get a company aligned behind a mission, with everyone pulling in the same direction.
Pre-AI, the product function was key to leading that coherence – specifically owning product-market fit and managing the interactions between the business and engineering functions. In the AI era – certainly in tech-driven companies – those functions are no longer as siloed as they used to be.
The sales function is no longer purely commercial. They’re increasingly proficient at shaping their ideas, creating business requirement documents and doing a lot of the work (at least on the face of it) that a product manager or CPO used to. I’m no longer getting one-sentence ideas and a screenshot, but thought-out requirements and case studies as a starting point.
The same is happening on the engineering side. Developers are more capable of understanding how the business operates and speaking in a way that’s coherent to the commercial side. AI is powering this mutual understanding the same way real-time translation broke down language barriers.
Probably – in both cases – new hires will be increasingly geared towards those personality types as well, accelerating the trend. So, we have less siloed functions and people much closer together in the stories they’re telling. Everyone feels more informed, better educated, and more empowered to contribute to overall strategy.
But, if everyone’s a peer, two questions emerge: Who drives the unified mission? And what does the product function do in that world?
In my current role, this broader shift met a specific moment. We had moved through earlier phases – getting the tech stack scalable, then nailing product-market fit – and were beginning to scale toward enterprise partnerships. That scaling exposed something our existing model couldn’t absorb: end-to-end accountability for the customer and partner experience was diffused across teams, and what worked at current scale would break at enterprise volumes.
A product leader has always been a bridge between functions, but in advisory or facilitating modes. What changed was the shift from coordinating decisions to owning them – from consensus to single-threaded accountability. Nearly a decade of leading product had given me context across commercial, engineering, risk and finance, so I moved to work directly with our CRO on customer experience and partnership readiness as our core operating priority.
My new mandate: optimize every decision for quality revenue and customer experience.
To accelerate that goal, I embedded myself across the full customer journey – the operational UX, the internal metrics, the competitive landscape. Not curated summaries passed up from customer-facing leads, but direct exposure to every friction and dropoff, so the trade-offs land with someone who can actually resolve them.
That’s the real shift. Those tough trade-off decisions that sat unresolved – or even unspoken – in middle management layers are now surfaced and can be acted on by someone with the cross-functional reach, time and CEO sponsorship to move quickly.
The early returns are tangible: wins in UI and GTM strategy (incorporating AI to attract attention and respond faster), plus longer-term projects to overhaul our onboarding UX and rewire how we pitch and win embedded partnerships.
So, how does this address fuzzy ownership? My hypothesis is that the CPO – and the broader product function – needs to evolve and take the lead in driving coherence.
Conversations with product peers show me we’re all feeling this pull (or push, if you’re not leaning into it). The smarter ones are concluding that the product function isn’t dead; it’s becoming the coherence function.
It’s still early days, and I’m learning as I go. But if I’m right, the best product leaders won’t be managing roadmaps – they’ll be the connective tissue holding the whole mission together. Let’s see if it holds.
The DAT premium party is mostly over. Since the November 2024 peak, over $60B has been wiped from DAT market caps. Nakamoto’s stock price crashed ~98%, now trading at a double digit discount below net asset value – the biggest failure to date. The market learned the hard way that holding someone else’s BTC isn’t worth a premium unless they’re doing something exceptional.
It’s not all doom and gloom though. Strategy’s (MSTR) capital innovation and XXI’s ecosystem investments still justify their valuations IMO. MSTR gives retail and institutional investors an “easy” path to discover Bitcoin, offering a range of instruments including yield. XXI has a worthy mission to be a full-fledged Bitcoin ecosystem. They’re worth a dabble with speculative capital, but don’t bet they’ll outperform just hodling BTC.
Beyond DATs, there’s a deeper problem: companies have failed to demonstrate that value flows back to L1s predictably. Lightning infrastructure is winning, but does routing revenue accrue to BTC holders? DeFi protocols move billions, yet LINK – the backbone oracle – has a chart that looks terrible despite obvious utility. At ETHDenver a few years ago I heard founders openly ask “Why do I need to pay Vitalik!?” They’re capturing value at their layer, not the base.
I’ve made these mistakes myself. Chased SUI (selling my SOL stack) thinking I was early on a better L1. Rotated my ETH bag into Bored Apes thinking blue-chip NFTs were the play. Still holding both – what I thought were quick wins turned into multi-year bags. Lost not just in dollars, but in BTC terms. The opportunity cost of not just stacking kills you twice.
So here’s where I’ve landed: My core holdings stay in BTC. Accept I’ll never have enough. Try to buy the dips. We’re still early.
But I’m not sitting out entirely. My speculative capital goes to the handful of companies I believe are genuinely strengthening Bitcoin’s L1 – not just building on it, but making Bitcoin itself more valuable and inevitable.
Bitwise is building the on-ramp infrastructure. Millions of retail investors get exposure through their funds. BTC remains their biggest AUM for a reason. Long game, but essential as adoption accelerates.
Voltage is tackling Lightning GTM better than anyone. If anyone can deliver a true Bitcoin L2 that works, it’s them. The ambition is there, and getting it right means BTC becomes a more usable medium of exchange.
Fold took a beating but made smart long-term choices – strengthened their cap structure, kept shipping their credit card, has multiple irons in the fire. They’re thinking in years, not quarters, and bring daily BTC utility to the masses.
The bar is higher now. We’re still building the plane while flying it, but I’ve never been more optimistic about Bitcoin’s future. There are no guarantees, of course. But, if you’re going to invest beyond pure HODLing, back the companies that make Bitcoin better, not just their own treasuries fatter.
This has been in my drafts for months and – somewhat depressingly – the topic is still around today. The thinking is that the economy moves in four year cycles and, perhaps more relevantly, Bitcoin price does too. We got our Q4 crash and bitcoin dipped ~50% with fear levels having been close to historic lows, and now we’re grinding or ranging depending on your viewpoint.
For four year cycle veterans this represents the “proof” that the cycle has ended and we are now in bear territory for months to come. For non four year cycle enthusiasts – aka “this time it’s different” bros – there are a dozen reasons for this blip and bitcoin is about to moon on a wave of liquidity the likes of which the developed world has never seen before.
So, who is correct, and does it really matter?
There is a real possibility both camps will be “right”. And, as the saying goes, everyone will get their bitcoin at the price they deserve.
Here’s what matters: from degen traders to Wall St, everyone’s trying to time the perfect entry. An investing framework might work for stocks or bonds, but bitcoin doesn’t care about your cycle theory. The opportunity isn’t in timing – it’s in not missing the accumulation window entirely.
The best time to buy the scarcest and hardest money ever invented was yesterday; the next best time is today. DCA if you need to smooth the entry, but don’t paper hand the opportunity to be early by waiting for a dip that may never come.
I used to think optionality (the ability to keep as many options available as possible) was a unique strength of mine.
This made me aloof and evasive on my position on many topics. The fear of offending somebody (and burning bridges) was real, and to some extent made sense when I was the least knowledgeable person in the room.
Once I had knowledge, however, an optionality preference meant that I was never convicted in my beliefs or actions. This made it easy to change my mind, but also eroded trust with people (professionally and personally) looking for decisiveness and reassurance.
The ability to change your mind is sacrosanct. The inability to make up your mind is cancerous.
Once I recognized this pattern in myself, I started seeing it everywhere. In leaders who hedge every decision through endless internal debate. In people (myself included) who stay quiet about their personal goals for fear of commitment or judgment. Preserving optionality feels safe, but it’s a slow leak of momentum and trust.
These days, I strive to lead with conviction and have confidence in my beliefs and actions until such time as new evidence presents itself.
This has created a snowball effect with my career, personal interests (focus on Bitcoin-led projects) and fitness goals (shredding and lifting my own body weight) where conviction builds on conviction and accelerates growth.
Being convicted also means saying no a lot of the time. A quick no – with a rational explanation – is way more effective most of the time than a long deliberation to preserve optionality.
Less time making decisions means more time working and building on what matters most.
Still a work in progress. I will change my mind a lot!
Bitcoin gave us a unique opportunity to think about things on a truly global, decentralized scale.
Most humans have some form of bias based on their geography and direct use case. Americans and Europeans (on the whole) are not bothered enough about debasement and payment frictions to care about crypto.
Bitcoin has found a more captive audience as a store of value and medium of exchange in countries with rampant inflation and capital controls. Think Venezuela, Turkey, etc. It is the ultimate form of currency that is independent of governments and institutions.
Emerging markets set the trend and developed markets follow. This is the reverse adoption curve for almost all existing products. As someone with experience developing global products it is still counterintuitive to establish PMF in small developing markets.
Stablecoins (I hope running on Bitcoin rails) are the first large (yet boring) use case that could be truly global in adoption. Most users care about being 24/7, fast and inexpensive more than they do about immutability, decentralization and security.
The more developed a market the more this is true.
Product builders need to make the case for the real benefits of blockchain technology (or not).
Personally, I care about the philosophy of Bitcoin, but there will be periods where getting a product into as many hands as possible is more important 📈
Current quantum tech can’t even crack factor-15 problems, let alone SHA-256. We’re talking orders of magnitude away.
The “secret quantum computer” theory doesn’t hold up. Given the public $Bs in quantum R&D, a similar shadow program would be nearly impossible to hide.
Here’s the kicker: Bitcoin devs aren’t quantum experts. BIPs are in progress, but nobody knows the real timeline or threat level.
Game theory matters too: even IF quantum breaks crypto, why target Bitcoin first? There are bigger fish (banking, military, etc). You’d get one shot before defenses mobilize.
The takeaway: Quantum concerns are real but years away. Bitdevs are moving deliberately, not panicking. Most current “quantum will kill Bitcoin” takes are FUD.
Nobody knows for certain. Stay informed, not anxious.
The title may be clickbait – tax isn’t a sexy topic – but nearly every BitcoinFi company building for institutions that I have spoken to sees it as a major barrier to entry. Tax obligations for Bitcoin and cryptoassets (since they are treated as property rather than currency in most jurisdictions) touch everything from payments to staking and lending. The elephant in the room is tax, and it remains a stubborn barrier to widespread adoption.
For individuals, it’s confusing and annoying. For institutions, the time dedication and compliance risks are several magnitudes higher. Internal tax teams worry about derivatives accounting, GAAP vs. IFRS treatment and quarterly mark-to-market requirements. I nearly had a major partnership deal unwind for exactly this reason! If the tax burden is not minimized, a tentative “Yes” can quickly become a hard “No” to the adoption of Bitcoin-led products.
The issue boils down to this: every movement of Bitcoin is a taxable event. While some countries have carved out narrow exemptions, the US and most OECD members have not. For BitcoinFi builders the table stakes are not just transparency (after all, this is an easy win for blockchain tech!), but robust infrastructure. This means reliable transaction data, technical attestations, audit rails and cost basis reconciliation, as well as API-led reporting that institutions can mold into their own views. These systems need to run 24/7/365 and feature excellent SDKs and templates with integrations directly into enterprise backbones like SAP and Oracle.
The crypto tax software market, worth $4.2B in 2024 and projected to exceed $10B by 2029, with a CAGR of 20%1, is mostly retail-driven today. Institutional needs are far greater, and the compliance burden in both time and money is likely to be 5-10X greater.
While it’s tempting to think stablecoins (fiat-denominated cryptocurrencies that effectively skip the tax issue because they are fiat pegged) are the solution2, I would argue these are inferior solutions that simply paper over the inconvenient tax treatment that Bitcoin suffers today.
Stablecoins appear to solve this by sidestepping capital gains calculations – and current adoption reflects that. Visa Onchain Analytics reported $8.5T in stablecoin transaction volume over the past 12 months3, compared with Bitcoin payments via Lightning which remain a tiny fraction of global settlement flows (optimistically estimated at 5%). But this is only a workaround. Stablecoins are inferior long-term and true adoption of Bitcoin is worth fighting for. The holy grail for BitcoinFi companies is simple: Bitcoin transactions should be recognized as currency movements, not taxable events.
Until then, progress will occur incrementally. A de minimis exemption for small payments (in current US proposals, under $2004) would remove friction for small day-to-day transactions. Global coordination of regulatory and legal requirements is also advancing, with the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) set to standardize disclosure requirements across borders.
Meanwhile, staking (and/or wrapping) and lending of Bitcoin is more complicated. If a holder maintains custody of their Bitcoin it is generally not considered a taxable event, but wrapping it into another token often is (at least under US rules). Non-custodial staking is unlikely to be appealing to yield providers and lenders. Here lies a genuine design challenge for BitcoinFi companies.
The way forward is clear. Let’s be proactive while embracing the tax reality we currently have, build products that make compliance seamless, and keep lobbying for policy change. Best-in-class solutions will mean real-time cost basis reporting, the ability to export directly into tax forms, architecture that is ISO27001 and SOC2 compliant, and above all, integrations that make tax issues invisible to partners and auditors alike.
If Bitcoin is to power global settlement, we don’t just need 24/7 and cheaper rails. We need clarity and compliance – and the companies that deliver both will be the ones that succeed.
I want to talk about something potentially controversial – but timely – after spending a few days immersed in conversations at Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas.
We’re all Bitcoiners. I don’t need to convince you of bitcoin’s soundness or the uniqueness of the Bitcoin network. But I do want to explore how we can do more with our BTC. How to extract more utility from bitcoin beyond simply HODLing it as a store of value.
Many of us feel we’ve escaped fiat decay and taken control of our financial destiny. But in practice, we’re often left cash flow neutral (or worse) with assets we don’t want to sell, and limited ways to tap into their value.
So let’s talk about four approaches to increasing bitcoin’s utility:
Spending it
Buying bitcoin-adjacent instruments
Staking it to earn yield
Borrowing against it
The case for spending
Bitcoin’s store-of-value status is well earned, but its original purpose was as money. It says so in the very title of Satoshi’s infamous white paper: “A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” Ignoring Bitcoin’s payment function risks weakening its potential as the future financial system.
The Lightning Network is the best (current) way to bring bitcoin’s payments vision to life. It enables instant, low-cost global transactions and is growing more robust by the day. I’ve been running a Lightning node for a while now, and while it’s taught me a ton, you don’t need to be a technical wizard to participate.
Even without running a node, you can use Lightning to send and receive bitcoin instantly, with better UX than many banking apps. (And, if you do venture into running your own Lightning node – and I highly recommend it – you can earn modest but real yield through routing fees if you manage channels efficiently.)
Look out for:
Cash Apphttps://cash.app/ | Possibly the slickest UX and on/off ramp for making payments with bitcoin.
Lightning Labshttps://lightning.engineering/ | Early mover offering a Layer 2 protocol for building Lightning-powered applications.
Lightsparkhttps://www.lightspark.com/ | Brainpower from the team behind Libra now focused on enabling institutions to scale Lightning payments.
Umbrelhttps://umbrel.com/ | An approachable way to run a Bitcoin+Lightning node with an active and helpful community.
The case for investing
If you’re bullish on BTC’s long-term trajectory, you can express that view through exposure to bitcoin treasury companies or structured funds that track bitcoin performance – often with easier access and tax benefits if you invest in a pension or other efficient wrapper (DYOR, not financial advice).
Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy ($MSTR) is the original Bitcoin proxy. But new contenders are now vying for the crown of the purest and most transparent bitcoin treasury company. Furthermore, products like $MSTY and $IMST have emerged to offer leveraged or derivative exposure, and $STRK or $STRF are pushing the idea of stable, income-oriented bitcoin-backed instruments even further.
I’m personally using MSTR options to speculate with limited capital at risk, but structured funds might be appealing for those seeking passive exposure or looking to diversify their existing portfolio.
Look out for:
Bitwisehttps://bitwiseinvestments.com/ | Leading crypto asset manager with thoughtfully designed products, bleeding-edge quants and a commitment to funding open-source development.
Strategyhttps://www.strategy.com/ | The OG Bitcoin treasury company. “There is no second best” – Michael Saylor.
Twenty Onehttps://xxi.money/ | Backed by Cantor Fitzgerald and Softbank, aiming to build the most transparent bitcoin fund yet.
The case for staking
This was the hot (over-hyped?) topic at Bitcoin 2025 – and also the most misunderstood.
Let’s be clear: staking bitcoin is not the same as staking in proof-of-stake systems like Ethereum. Bitcoin doesn’t have a native staking mechanism. So when a provider offers “bitcoin staking” what they really mean is: your bitcoin is being deployed in a strategy that generates yield, and they’ll share a portion with you.
This raises critical questions:
What is my BTC being used for?
Is it being lent out, wrapped, or used as collateral?
Who controls custody?
Is the yield sustainable – or subsidized?
One standout company building in this space is Acre. You deposit BTC and earn BTC, without needing to convert it into tokens or move off-platform. Behind the scenes, Acre uses secure and decentralized infrastructure to put your BTC to work, with yield coming from demand to rent liquidity for leverage – akin to an on-chain money market. It’s early days, but the design aligns incentives well and emphasizes transparency and user control.
TL;DR If you’re going to stake your BTC, make sure you understand the mechanics and the risks.
Look out for:
Acrehttps://acre.fi/ | Backed by Thesis. An on-Bitcoin yield protocol offering native BTC compounding to consumers and institutions.
The case for borrowing
This one almost needs no introduction. If you need cash but don’t want to sell your BTC, borrow against it. The idea is as old as finance itself – securing a loan with collateral – but Bitcoin makes it programmable.
The big concern here is rehypothecation: are your coins actually held 1:1, or are they being reused behind the scenes? Trust and transparency are key. There’s also market risk: you’re using leverage (true, even if it doesn’t feel like it!). If BTC drops, your loan may be liquidated unless you top up your collateral.
Ask yourself:
Can I support interest payments if my income drops?
What are the margin requirements and what happens if bitcoin’s value declines?
Who are the underlying capital providers, and in what circumstances can they exercise rights to my bitcoin?
Still, when done responsibly, this can be a tax-efficient way to fund fiat expenses – or buy more bitcoin – without selling your stack.
Look out for:
Mezohttps://mezo.org/ | Built by Thesis. Bitcoin-backed lending with a promised competitive borrowing rate. Mainnet was launched during Bitcoin 2025.
Strikehttps://strike.me/ | The Bitcoin financial products company that never fails to amaze with its ability to ship fast and delight users.
From HODL to Action
Bitcoin is pristine collateral. It’s hard money. It’s digital gold. But for Bitcoin to become the backbone of a new financial system, we need to use it, not just stack it.
Consider how spending, staking and borrowing and experimenting with bitcoin-adjacent products fit within your risk appetite. And let’s help the buidlers out there create a world where Bitcoin powers real economic activity – without compromising what makes it special.
A thought piece reflecting on a side degen project I ran in 2023 and a potential opportunity for a leading crypto fund manager. Just for fun. All thoughts and opinions expressed are my own.
NFTs [Non-Fungible Tokens] have served as a gateway into crypto for millions. Unlike many digital assets, NFTs don’t require deep technical knowledge to spark curiosity. The appeal of a Pudgy Penguin or an XCOPY 1:1 speaks for itself. Communities have formed around top collections, often delivering outsized returns to those fortunate enough to mint a genesis NFT.
Yet institutional-grade access remains limited. Bitwise was an early mover, launching its Blue-Chip NFT Index Fund in 2021, but there’s still no pathway for deeper, more dynamic exposure aligned with the true nature of this market.
A Strategic Fit for Bitwise
Bitwise was founded to provide clean, compliant and understandable access to digital assets. Applying a fund manager’s mindset to a tech-native domain, they’ve simplified access, reduced friction and built investor trust.
A managed NFT fund would be a natural extension of this approach. NFTs remain daunting even for established crypto investors, facing barriers around custody, pricing and trust. Bitwise has the brand, infrastructure and qualified distribution network to overcome these challenges once again – this time in the rapidly evolving world of Web3 culture and digital collectibles.
Such a fund would differentiate Bitwise strategically. Most institutional managers remain on the sidelines of NFTs, constrained by traditional valuation frameworks and benchmarking fears. Bitwise could step boldly into this space, reinforcing its innovative edge and potentially delivering outsized returns.
The Opportunity: Big, Underserved and Ripe for Structure
At its peak in 2022, NFT sales volume reached $23.7B (Cointelegraph). Although the market cooled in 2023-24, recovery is well underway. Projections estimate the NFT market will reach $35.7B in 2025 and expand to $211.7B by 2030 (Grand View Research), representing a CAGR of over 41%.
Recent high-profile sales illustrate renewed interest: CryptoPunk #3100 sold for $16M (4,500 ETH) and “Fidenza #313” by Tyler Hobbs went for over $3.3M. While these could be considered exceptional, these sales highlight the broader appeal and potential of digital collectibles.
Yet there’s no agreed definition of a “blue-chip” NFT. Even among crypto veterans, passionate disagreements persist. Factors like emotional resonance, historical significance and collector sentiment complicate traditional valuation frameworks.
In January 2025, respected NFT researcher/collector ‘Jediwolf’ attempted to rank the top 100,000 NFTs. Initial consensus quickly dissolved into debate, leading Jediwolf to conclude “some people will inevitably be dissatisfied and there’s little that can be done to appease everyone” (tweet). This highlights the complexity and emotional depth of NFT investing – a domain ripe for a structured, data-driven approach.
Bitwise could lead by developing a sophisticated model that blends cultural signals with on-chain data, offering investors diversified, real-time exposure to this opaque asset class.
A Personal Experiment: Building a Model
During summer 2023, I attempted to create such a model-driven fund. Friends frequently asked how to invest in NFTs, and I realized I lacked a definitive answer. I began developing a model focused on investing in top NFT collections and exiting based on multiples or market indicators.
Working with Dune Analytics, I analyzed NFT trading pairs – items with observable buy/sell history – organized by collection, rarity traits and historical performance. However, extensive wash trading and bot activity obscured meaningful data, and the rapid emergence of NFTs on new chains (Bitcoin Ordinals, Solana’s Mad Lads, to name only two) quickly outdated my initial models. Continuous updates were clearly necessary, though the concept itself remained sound.
Beyond investor returns, such analytics could also benefit custodians, insurers, and digital and physical auction houses. These stakeholders could contribute to model insights, offsetting operational costs and amplifying industry interest.
Additionally, NFTs often offer utility such as event access, pre-mints, or airdrops – benefits that fund investors could directly enjoy, providing tangible value beyond price appreciation.
Challenges (and Why Bitwise Is Better Equipped)
Despite initial enthusiasm, my project stalled due to the required upfront capital, regulatory uncertainty and limited short-term returns. Investors showed intrigue, but hesitated without institutional backing. I shelved the idea, until a chance encounter at a recent crypto event brought it back to mind.
Bitwise – unlike individual entrepreneurs – possesses the infrastructure, trust and regulatory expertise needed. Still, risks remain significant. NFTs carry reputational and emotional weight – one controversy can rapidly depress floor prices.
Practical questions also persist: What regulatory jurisdiction will the fund choose, and how will it affect investor eligibility? What rights will investors have over the NFTs? Issues around intellectual property, usage, airdrops, and perks must be addressed transparently.
Liquidity also poses a challenge. Unlike most Bitwise products, NFTs from top collections often lack immediate market liquidity. Clear communication regarding lockups, redemption terms and valuation will be essential, though liquidity should naturally evolve as the market matures.
Time to Go Beyond the Basics
Bitwise’s existing Blue-Chip NFT Index Fund, based on quarterly rebalancing, was appropriate in the market’s early days. Today’s NFT ecosystem demands more sophisticated, data-informed models capable of capturing real-time nuances. Get this right and the potential is enormous!
A Next Frontier
Launching a managed NFT fund aligns perfectly with Bitwise’s mission of democratizing crypto investing. Leveraging its strengths – education, compliance, trust – Bitwise could confidently pioneer this next frontier in digital assets.
