Institutional Adoption Isn't Adding Value, It's Bleeding Crypto Dry

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-02-24Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-24

Анотація

The article argues that institutional adoption of crypto is not about supporting the ecosystem but rather a strategy to extract value from it. Traditional financial institutions, such as Tether, Coinbase, Circle, and BlackRock, are generating billions in revenue from crypto through stablecoins, ETFs, and other financial products, often capturing more economic value than the protocols themselves. The piece highlights that institutions are primarily focused on profit maximization, using crypto to create new revenue streams rather than reduce costs. The author warns that without building strong native crypto institutions to retain economic benefits on-chain, the crypto economy risks being absorbed by traditional finance, leading to value drainage rather than genuine growth. The call to action is for the crypto community to prioritize developing its own financial infrastructure to keep value within the ecosystem.

Author | Meltem Demirors

Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Translator | DingDang (@XiaMiPP)

Institutions have finally "entered crypto"—but they're not here to take over your bags. They're here to turn the crypto economy into a fee-generating machine for their AUM (Assets Under Management) accumulation. This isn't a judgment or criticism, just an observation of fact.

The following thoughts primarily address crypto as a digital currency/token economy, rather than merely as financial infrastructure blockchains (the latter, in the vast majority of cases, does not require a native token, as proven by the architecture of most DeFi governance tokens).

This is a view I've held since last year's Digital Assets Summit, where the title of my opening speech was "Believe in Something." Everything that has happened in the past twelve months hasn't changed my view, only made the picture clearer.

Recently, my friends Evgeny from Wintermute and Dean from Markets Inc wrote two great articles discussing what so-called "institutional adoption of crypto" really means and its impact on market cycles. This inspired me to write a third piece, building on their foundation and adding a new perspective—the changing capital landscape and the erupting AUM war.

If you're short on time, here's the one-sentence summary:

"Institutional adoption" is not a mission; it's an extraction strategy. The only real question left is: Can crypto build and fund its own institutions fast enough to keep economic value on-chain, rather than letting it continuously leak out to TradFi?

TradFi is Already Extracting Most of the Value from the Crypto Economy

Just follow the money flow to see who the real winners are in the current crypto world: not DeFi protocols, but the very financial companies that Satoshi Nakamoto sought to replace in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

  • Just the two major stablecoins, USDT and USDC, generate approximately $10 billion in net interest income annually, belonging to Tether (a private company), Coinbase, and Circle (public companies). These companies are certainly important participants in the crypto economy, but they serve their shareholders first.
  • Cantor Fitzgerald—led by current US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick—earns hundreds of millions of dollars annually by holding US Treasuries for Tether and organizing trades around digital asset companies and investment products.
  • Former US President Trump, his family, and partners have also cumulatively profited billions of dollars through expanding crypto projects and token vehicles.
  • BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF, IBIT, grew to approximately $100 billion AUM in about 18 months, becoming the fastest-growing ETF in history and one of the company's most profitable products (more on that later).
  • Apollo Global Management and its peers are quietly funneling crypto collateral and corporate treasury balances into their own credit and multi-asset funds.

Every year, traditional financial institutions extract tens of billions of dollars in assets and profits from the crypto economy—and in many cases, they capture more economic upside than the protocols that initially created the value.

Those "institutional innovators" cheering for "adoption" at countless conferences and the trench warriors obsessing over memecoins on Twitter are more alike than you think. We should stop licking boots and start using our brains.

How Do Institutions Actually Think?

Corporations have one core function: profit maximization. Cryptocurrency can achieve this in two ways:

  • Cost Side: Distributed ledgers, on-chain collateral, and instant settlement can significantly reduce back and middle-office operational costs, improving collateral liquidity and utilization (see my previous notes on fungible liquidity).
  • Revenue Side: Packaging crypto as ETFs, tokenized funds, structured products, custody services, basis trade packages, lending, treasury management solutions... all throw off hefty fee streams, plus mindless hype from the crypto community on Twitter.

Over the past decade, institutions focused primarily on the first way.

When we founded DCG in 2015, I spent three full years pitching the advantages of Bitcoin's global ledger and final settlement mechanism to almost every financial institution. At that time, financial services firms did not see crypto as a new revenue source. It was considered too risky; and the potential gains from pushing altcoins were not enough to convince boards to take on the reputational and compliance risks.

After leaving DCG, I joined CoinShares in early 2018. The company's AUM grew from tens of millions to billions of dollars gradually. The few independent investment managers who dared to embrace Bitcoin—like Cathie Wood, Murray Stahl, Ross Stevens—were ultimately richly rewarded for their courage.

Early 2024 became a watershed moment. Institutions began using crypto as a tool for the second path: a new revenue source.

Although there had been sporadic institutional participation before, the launch of BlackRock's IBIT Bitcoin ETF blew the dam wide open. IBIT became the most successful ETF ever, significantly boosting BlackRock's earnings. Key numbers:

  • IBIT reached $70 billion AUM in its first year, becoming the fastest ETF to reach that size in history, about five times faster than the previous record holder, SPDR Gold Shares (GLD).
  • After IBIT options launched in late 2024, it attracted over $30 billion in new inflows, while competitors' flows largely stalled, giving it over half the market share of all Bitcoin ETF AUM.
  • IBIT's current ~$100 billion AUM can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fee revenue for BlackRock, making it even more profitable than the company's nearly trillion-dollar S&P 500 index fund.

The conclusion is clear: IBIT showed the playbook to all major asset managers and financial services institutions—take Bitcoin or other digital asset → package into traditional fund structure → list it → become a stable, hefty fee stream. Everything that follows—DATs, tokenized treasuries, on-chain money market funds—is just running that playbook over and over.

The AI Capex Supercycle: A Black Hole Devouring Capital

Switching gears slightly to discuss another major trend—this is also the reason we launched Crucible immediately after IBIT's launch in 2024. The energy-compute value chain is reshaping the global capital stack in real-time.

Building the AI economy—chips, data centers, power, factories, etc.—will require trillions of dollars in capital expenditure over the next decade, and that money has to come from somewhere. All liquid assets not directly tied to AI—crypto, non-AI stocks, even credit assets—are being sold to chase those perceived as "must-have" AI plays.

Simultaneously, many LPs are overallocated in private markets, with slower distributions and dividends, and are quietly cutting back or delaying new private credit and PE commitments. This leads to longer, more uneven, harder-to-predict fundraising cycles, and a fierce battle for quality AUM channels between asset managers and PEs. The result is that anything that looks like a capital pool will be drained.

On-Chain Capital: The Next AUM Frontier

In this AUM war, crypto is no longer a quirky toy but trillions in potential management size, sitting there plainly visible.

IBIT has proven that crypto is both a money printer and a "honeypot" for attracting institutional allocators. The Trump administration has also made it clear it will create an extremely permissive environment for all sorts of crypto innovation.

On-chain asset management and treasury size already amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars:

  • ~$300 billion in stablecoin supply, with ~60% being USDT and 25% USDC;
  • DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL) of ~$90–100 billion, spread across Ethereum, Solana, BSC, Hyperliquid, etc.;
  • Hundreds of billions more in Real World Asset (RWA) products via tokenized money market funds (like BlackRock's BUIDL), tokenized gold (like Tether Gold, PAXG), and consumer credit products (like Figure's tokenized HELOCs).

But the average yield on this on-chain capital is only 2–4%, while traditional money market funds offer ~4.1%, and even Lido's $18 billion stETH pool only yields ~2.3%.

To a hungry asset accumulation machine, this isn't "DeFi TVL"; it's under-monetized cash flow—ready to be packaged, staked, re-lent, and fee'd upon. For institutions, this is as natural as breathing.

Image from DefiLlama

Tokenization and regulated wrapper products have turned previously "untouchable" crypto capital into fee-generating AUM that fits existing custody and risk frameworks. As companies, DAOs, and protocols accumulate large crypto treasuries and seek safer external yield, asset managers can repackage these assets into tokenized funds, money market funds, and structured products. For companies facing fundraising pressure and saturated traditional channels, "raiding" crypto balance sheets is one of the cleanest paths to grow fee AUM.

A Wake-Up Call

Just as Western economies introduced populations that did not share their culture and values and are now suffering the social and economic consequences, crypto stands on the brink of a similar existential crisis. The crypto economy and its leading thinkers are introducing financial institutions that do not share our values, institutions that are not here to co-build native economic growth, and our industry will soon taste the same social and economic bitterness.

If allowed to develop unchecked, the crypto economy will become just another liquidity silo for traditional financial AUM machines. The only way out is to accelerate the building and scaling of our own native institutions—on-chain asset managers, risk managers, underwriters, financial products, crypto-native allocators—to compete for treasury AUM, design products that truly serve crypto's long-term interests, and keep more economic value inside the crypto ecosystem rather than leaking out to corporate P&Ls.

If we don't prioritize working with crypto-native institutions now, "institutional adoption" won't be a victory; it will be an annexation.

Believe in something. Otherwise, we'll have nothing left.

Related Reading

The War Between Stablecoins and Banking Probably Doesn't Exist

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main argument presented in the article regarding institutional adoption of crypto?

AThe article argues that institutional adoption is not a mission to build up the crypto economy but an extraction strategy. Traditional financial institutions are entering crypto not to support its growth but to siphon off value, turning it into a source of fees and assets under management (AUM) for themselves, often extracting more economic upside than the protocols that created the value.

QWhich traditional financial entities are highlighted as major beneficiaries of the current crypto economy?

AMajor beneficiaries include Tether (a private company), Coinbase and Circle (public companies) which profit from stablecoin interest, Cantor Fitzgerald which earns billions from holding U.S. Treasuries for Tether and organizing trades, former President Trump and associates profiting from crypto projects, BlackRock with its highly profitable Bitcoin ETF IBIT, and Apollo Global Management redirecting crypto collateral to its funds.

QHow does the article describe the shift in how institutions view cryptocurrency around 2024?

AAround 2024, institutions shifted from viewing crypto primarily as a tool for cost reduction (e.g., through distributed ledgers and instant settlement) to seeing it as a new revenue source. This was catalyzed by the success of BlackRock's IBIT Bitcoin ETF, which demonstrated that crypto could be packaged into traditional fund structures to generate substantial, stable revenue streams.

QWhat challenge does the AI capital expenditure supercycle pose to other asset classes like crypto?

AThe AI capital expenditure supercycle, requiring trillions in spending on chips, data centers, and power over the next decade, is creating a massive capital drain. Liquidity from assets not directly tied to AI—including crypto, non-AI stocks, and credit assets—is being sold off to chase 'must-have' AI investments, intensifying competition for AUM.

QWhat solution does the article propose to prevent crypto from being absorbed by traditional finance?

AThe article proposes accelerating the creation and growth of native crypto institutions—such as on-chain asset managers, risk management firms, underwriters, and crypto-native financial products—to compete for treasury AUM, design products that serve crypto's long-term interests, and keep economic value within the crypto ecosystem rather than letting it leak out to traditional finance.

Пов'язані матеріали

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit23 хв тому

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit23 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit42 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit42 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit51 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit51 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片