Before entering the second half of the 2020s in the UTC+8 time zone, the long-term narrative surrounding Bitcoin is being pulled to an unprecedented height by the radical predictions of a few institutions. On one side, Ark Invest has thrown out a scenario where the price of Bitcoin could fluctuate between $300,000, $710,000, and $1.5 million by 2030. On the other side, the Swiss financial institution Sygnum predicts that by 2026, at least several G20-level economies will attempt to incorporate Bitcoin into their national reserves at a ratio not exceeding 1%. The time anchor is clearly marked, the numbers are pushed to extremes, and the contradictions become apparent: why is an asset that can fluctuate several times within a year, and is long regarded as a "high-risk chip," starting to be discussed as an "alternative option" in institutional asset allocation and even sovereign reserve systems?
This narrative dissonance partly stems from the fragmented signs that have already emerged in the real world. On one hand, Ark points out that the average daily absorption of ETFs has reached several times the new output from miners, indicating that incremental Bitcoin is being rapidly locked in by financial products before entering traditional exchange spot markets. On the other hand, companies like DDC Enterprise are increasing their Bitcoin holdings at the treasury level, showing a tendency to treat it as a long-term asset rather than a short-term speculative chip. At the same time, on-chain, there are already real large payment cases like $14 million USDT real estate transactions, indicating that large physical assets are attempting to accept on-chain capital as consideration. These signs have not yet formed a complete closed loop, but they are sufficient to outline a main line: from ETFs, corporate treasuries to sovereign reserves, Bitcoin is being slowly pushed towards a new order node of "institutionalization and sovereignization." The real question becomes whether Bitcoin will be tamed into a large asset tightly wrapped in a regulatory framework when Wall Street and national balance sheets become involved, or whether it will leverage these forces to pry open the existing currency and reserve system's reconstruction.
The Power of ETFs Absorbing New Chips
The most intuitive change in the Bitcoin market structure first occurs in who absorbs the new supply and where the price is "priced." According to Ark Invest's analysis, since the launch of the spot ETF, the net inflow of ETFs has already reached more than 3 times the new output from miners, meaning that most of the incremental chips mined daily by the computing power network are "reserved" and locked by ETF-like products at the financial level before entering the traditional exchange spot market. The past spot market, mainly dominated by retail investors and high-frequency trading, relied on the matching order book of exchanges to complete price discovery, but is now gradually yielding to the redemption mechanism of ETFs and the asset allocation rhythm of institutional investors.
This power shift changes the rhythm and focus of price formation. In the early market, prices often fluctuated violently around short-term long-short battles on exchanges, with funding leverage and emotional volatility being the dominant variables. However, in an environment where ETFs continue to absorb, the marginal buying strength is more determined by the quarterly rebalancing and risk budgeting of institutions like pension funds and asset management companies. The weight of miner selling pressure in the total liquidity pool is significantly diluted, and the expansion and contraction of ETFs begin to influence the slope of the market. For the market, this means that when ETFs continue to see net subscriptions, there is potential for the upward slope of every bull market in history to be amplified, and it also means that when the macro environment or risk appetite reverses, a one-sided crowded redemption tide will exert more concentrated downward pressure on prices.
On this timeline, Bitcoin is sliding from being an early "marginal speculative asset" to the trajectory of a "financialized large asset." The redemption instructions behind the ETF glass curtain are reshaping who decides the price anchor point, and are gradually embedding Bitcoin into the volatility logic of traditional financial markets.
Imagination from Corporate Treasuries to Sovereign Reserves
If ETFs are the first layer of Bitcoin being absorbed into the mainstream asset allocation system, then the discussion of corporate treasuries and sovereign reserves pushes this path deeper into the balance sheet. Since the beginning of this year in the UTC+8 time zone, companies like DDC Enterprise have publicly disclosed their increased Bitcoin holdings, accounting for it on the asset side rather than treating it as a speculative chip that can be closed at any time. This practice, in terms of accounting treatment and internal governance, is itself an attitude: companies are attempting to view Bitcoin as a long-term allocation asset, alongside cash, bonds, and even some equity assets, rather than simply "trading profits."
At the national level, Sygnum's assessment is even more symbolic. The institution predicts that by 2026, at least several G20-level economies will attempt to incorporate Bitcoin into their national foreign exchange or comprehensive reserves at a ratio of no more than 1%. This ratio is numerically minimal, but it is extremely prominent on the signaling level—it does not mean overturning the existing reserve system, but rather quietly adding an "optional" choice alongside gold, foreign exchange, and government bonds.
Surrounding this 1% setting, Sygnum provides a cascading logic of "trillions-level reallocation." Once sovereign nations make even the smallest weight adjustment on the reserve side, it is likely to be followed by sovereign wealth funds, public pensions, and large insurance funds referencing and following suit, as their asset volumes are often valued in trillions. Therefore, even if each type of institution only allocates a few basis points to a 1% position in Bitcoin, it is sufficient to pull out a capital redistribution process measured in "trillions of dollars."
This capital reallocation will directly change the power structure of "who decides the bottom and top." In the past, Bitcoin's local bottoms were often shaped by the cash flow pressure of miners and the risk appetite of retail investors, while the tops were determined by the frenzy of leveraged funds and liquidity overflow. Once sovereign entities and long-term institutions become the main holders, the bottom is more likely to be anchored by their strategic holding willingness and macro hedging needs, while the top will be more deeply bound to the institutional valuation framework, regulatory red lines, and political pressures. Prices will no longer just be a collective vote of crypto-native players, but will structurally intertwine with national balance sheets and global allocation logic.
The Collision of High Volatility and Central Bank Thinking
To understand the tension of Bitcoin entering the sovereign reserve discussion, one must first return to the common sense of traditional central bank asset structures. A typical sovereign reserve portfolio usually consists of gold, major reserve currency foreign exchange assets, and high-rated government bonds, which share the commonality of relatively low volatility, deep liquidity, and a high degree of embedding in the existing political and financial order. Central banks managing such assets are more like making technical balances between liquidity, safety, and yield, rather than betting on a high-risk future narrative.
In stark contrast is Bitcoin's long-standing high volatility characteristics and strong political sensitivity. During periods of macroeconomic easing, Bitcoin can record dozens of times in price increases within a few years; during liquidity tightening or regulatory crackdowns, it may experience rapid pullbacks of half or even deeper. More importantly, there exists structural tension between it and the dollar-dominated global financial system; any sovereign-level adoption will be interpreted as an expression of attitude towards the existing monetary order.
Even so, the impulse for reserve diversification is still brewing. For some economies, excessive reliance on a single reserve currency means a lack of maneuvering space in the context of geopolitical conflicts or sanctions, and the demand for "de-dollarization" of financial infrastructure has been increasingly mentioned in recent years. In this context, although Bitcoin cannot be equated with traditional reserve assets in terms of volatility and technological maturity, it offers a "systemic outside" option with its decentralized, cross-border attributes.
Holding Bitcoin at a position not exceeding 1% in this context resembles an "insurance" logic: central banks are not trying to immediately reconstruct their reserve framework, but rather reserving a hedging tool for an extreme scenario—systemic failure of traditional currency and financial systems—under the premise of controllable costs. This choice does not need to be proven to yield reasonable short-term returns at present, but provides an additional layer of protection in terms of political and financial security.
Resistance is also clearly visible. The risk-averse bureaucratic systems within central banks and finance departments naturally maintain distance from price volatility and technological uncertainty; politicians may amplify the "paper losses" of Bitcoin holdings during every market correction, using it as a bargaining chip in political struggles; international organizations and multinational financial institutions, out of instinct to maintain the existing order, may also release negative signals regarding sovereign holdings of Bitcoin in terms of public opinion and rules. Thus, the contact between Bitcoin and sovereign reserves is squeezed into a narrow gap of "technically feasible, politically sensitive," with a small weight probe to exchange for a strategic option that does not need to be publicly declared but exists in reality.
On-Chain Payments and Underlying Experiments of New Crypto Banks
Bitcoin's transition from a high-risk asset to an alternative reserve is not isolated from broader on-chain financial practices. At the intersection of the real world and the on-chain world, some highly symbolic scenes have already begun to emerge: research briefs mention a $14 million USDT real estate transaction in Miami, which partially migrates the traditionally complex and lengthy large real estate transactions to the blockchain settlement layer. Such cases are merely data points, but they indicate that high-value assets in the real world are already willing to use on-chain assets as consideration and settlement tools.
In parallel, a batch of crypto projects that originally focused only on token prices and liquidity mining are shifting their focus to payments and new banking services. In this trend, the teams are attempting to rewrite the financial infrastructure layer: whether it is on-chain account systems, cross-border clearing, or custody and credit interfaces for institutions, they are being reconstructed in the form of code and smart contracts. The account-clearing-custody closed loop dominated by traditional banks is being challenged by a more open and programmable financial stack.
The significance of these practices for Bitcoin does not lie in it directly becoming a daily payment tool, but rather in quietly reinforcing the notion that on-chain assets are fully capable of taking on the roles of settlement and value storage. When code and consensus can support large transactions worth tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars, the psychological threshold for viewing Bitcoin as a "reserve vehicle" will correspondingly lower. Assets like USDT primarily serve daily circulation and payment functions, building a high-frequency capital flow layer in conjunction with new crypto banks; Bitcoin, on the other hand, resembles a high-level collateral and long-term reserve asset at the top layer of the new financial stack. The two do not overlap in function but structurally support each other. Daily payments and account services provide the blood flow for the on-chain economy, while Bitcoin's "reserve narrative" adds a value anchor point that can benchmark traditional financial assets to the entire system.
The Vision of $1.5 Million and the Bottom Line of $300,000
In this macro narrative context, the three price paths thrown out by Ark Invest for 2030 are not just a set of abstract numbers, but a scenario-based imagination of future market structure and capital structure. According to their public information, Ark's paths include: in a very pessimistic scenario, the price of Bitcoin is about $300,000; in what is seen as a more likely baseline scenario, about $710,000; and in an optimistic, even aggressive bull market scenario, it could reach $1.5 million. It is important to emphasize repeatedly that this is merely a scenario projection derived from the assumptions and models of one institution, and not any form of certainty commitment or price guide.
Behind these numbers, the core assumptions of Ark's narrative are relatively clear: first, the spot ETF will continue to maintain an unexpectedly high absorption rate of chips in the coming years, locking in a large amount of circulating chips in financial products for the long term; second, corporate treasuries like DDC Enterprise will further expand the weight of Bitcoin allocation, treating it as a long-term asset akin to digital gold; third, the scenario depicted by Sygnum, where sovereign and large institutions slowly open the allocation floodgates, will gradually materialize, thereby creating a cascading effect in the asset management industry and at the national level.
Once institutions and potential sovereign entities become the main holders of Bitcoin, the volatility pattern of Bitcoin may undergo a fundamental change. In the short term, prices will still be influenced by macro liquidity, regulatory events, and market sentiment, but over a longer period, volatility may converge due to the extended average holding period of holders. The spans of bull and bear cycles will be lengthened, and while drawdowns will still be severe in absolute terms, they will be more deeply embedded within macro and policy cycles. The market is shifting from one dominated by crypto-native "narrative-driven" dynamics to one driven by asset allocation and macro hedging logic.
It is worth noting that Ark has not disclosed the parameters and sensitivity analysis of its model in detail in its public materials. The price paths are highly dependent on the interlinking of multiple premises, and any one of these links—whether a sudden shift in regulatory attitude or a drastic change in the macro environment—could cause the actual trajectory to deviate significantly from the model scenarios. More importantly, institutional price predictions often serve as narrative-building tools; they shape a "possible future" rather than providing specific operational references for individual investors. Therefore, a more prudent attitude is to view the range of $300,000 to $1.5 million as a quantitative metaphor for the degree of "institutionalization and sovereignization," rather than a target price for individual decision-making.
A New Order After the Transfer of Chips
Reconnecting these scattered fragments reveals a clear main line: Bitcoin is undergoing a profound power shift. From an early market structure dominated by miners and retail investors, to the current absolute advantage of ETFs in absorbing new chips, to corporate treasuries beginning to view it as a long-term asset, and the significant imaginative space at the sovereign reserve level of no more than 1%, chips are slowly migrating from the hands of crypto-native players to Wall Street and potential national treasuries.
This process of institutionalization and sovereignization is expected to bring deeper liquidity, richer derivative tools, and stronger institutional endorsement, gradually bringing Bitcoin closer to the core of mainstream asset allocation. On the other hand, it will also tie it more closely to the chariot of macroeconomic cycles, regulatory games, and geopolitical conflicts. When it appears on sovereign balance sheets, every price shock will be imbued with political and public opinion interpretations, and every regulatory statement may trigger significant price fluctuations.
In the coming years, several key observation points will be particularly noteworthy: whether the concentration of holdings in spot ETFs continues to rise, potentially forming "super holders"; whether the public disclosure of corporate treasury allocations to Bitcoin moves from individual cases to broader industry practices; and the regulatory attitudes of various countries towards crypto financial infrastructure—whether they choose to build compliant frameworks to absorb it or attempt to weaken its systemic influence by restricting on-chain activities. These variables will collectively determine whether Bitcoin is included in the risk asset basket of the old order or continues to maintain a certain degree of "out-of-system" characteristics.
As both the state and Wall Street become deeply involved, the fate of Bitcoin becomes increasingly suspenseful. It may be gradually tamed into a highly volatile but controllable digital bulk asset under the dual embrace of regulation and institutional allocation; or it may leverage this power to move from its original marginal position closer to the core of the global reserve system, thereby exerting pressure to reshape the existing monetary order. In this long process of chip transfer, who Bitcoin ultimately becomes a tool for and how it will rewrite the financial landscape may only be answered by time.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
