Bloomingbit Newsroom

[Exchange Notice News] Send a push notification~! (ja)

[Price Surge/Plunge News] Sending a push alert~! (ja)

[Breaking News] Sending a push notification~! (ja)

[Breaking News] Sending a push~! (ja)

[Pick News] Send a push~! (ja)

[General News] Sending a push notification~! (ja)

[Exchange Notice News] Sending a push~! (en)

[Rapid Price Fluctuation News] Sending a push alert~! (en)

[Breaking News] Sending a push notification~! (en)

[Pick News] Send a push~! (en)

[General News] Sending a push notification~! (en)

[Overseas News] Send a push~!

[Exchange Notice] Sending a push notification~!

[Sharp Price Move] Sending a push notification~!

[Breaking News] Sending a push~!

[Pick News] Send a push notification~!

[General News] Sending a push~!

As global accounting and consulting firm PwC said it will abandon the cautious stance it has maintained to date and move to meaningfully expand its digital-asset business, a growing segment of the market is interpreting the move not as a signal of growth but as a crisis-response maneuver. With structural instability in the digital-asset market still unresolved, concerns are being raised that potential side effects and systemic risk could increase as even major accounting firms enter high-risk areas in earnest. According to a Financial Times (FT) report cited on the 5th (local time) by Wu Blockchain, Paul Griggs, leader of PwC’s U.S. firm, said that “the strategic shift began last year,” adding that “as discussions over stablecoin and digital-asset legislation progress in the United States, a foundation is being laid to restore market confidence.” However, the market has criticized the remarks as an overly optimistic reading of legislative discussions that have not yet been finalized. Expectations were also cited around clarifying stablecoin rules, including the GENIUS Act, but it remains unclear what form the regulatory direction will ultimately take. The industry has also pointed out that the very assumption that regulatory clarity will immediately translate into market stability could be a risky judgment. In the past, rapid expansion has occurred amid expectations of mainstream adoption, only to be followed repeatedly by large-scale corrections triggered by tougher regulation or market shocks. In the very near term, there are heightened concerns that an aggressive push by global professional-services firms like PwC could send an excessive signal of confidence to the digital-asset market, spurring inflows of speculative money. This could instead amplify market volatility and generate new risks in periods of regulatory gaps. Over the medium term, if the share of digital assets expands rapidly across accounting, audit, and risk-management services, concerns are being raised that complex risks that existing accounting standards and audit frameworks cannot readily handle may accumulate. With issues such as valuation, internal controls, and accountability for digital assets not clearly established, the deeper major accounting firms become involved, the greater the likelihood that future disputes and erosion of trust could also grow. Over the long term, there are worries that PwC’s strategic shift could push the broader accounting and consulting industry into a digital-asset-centered competition, resulting in the industry as a whole becoming structurally exposed to a highly volatile, high-risk market. In particular, if the digital-asset market enters a prolonged downturn or regulation unfolds more aggressively than expected, analysts say global professional-services firms that have invested excessively in the area are also likely to face reputational risk and pressure to overhaul their business structures at the same time. Experts assess PwC’s move less as a straightforward growth strategy than as a “risk-taking expansion” undertaken in a situation where options are limited amid slowing growth in the traditional accounting and consulting market. As the digital-asset industry overall has yet to reach maturity, there is also a growing call in the market to be wary that active entry by large institutions could instead act as a catalyst that amplifies market instability over the medium to long term.

Concerns are rapidly spreading that Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), the publicly listed company with the world’s largest Bitcoin (BTC) holdings, could face an unprecedented, multifaceted crisis as it enters the new year. The market view is that Strategy has moved beyond simple share-price weakness and has entered a phase in which structural risks are coming to the fore in earnest. According to cryptocurrency outlet BeInCrypto on the 2nd (Korea time), Strategy’s shares plunged about 49% last year. This is seen as more than a routine pullback—a signal that investor confidence is eroding sharply. A key driver of the slump is weak Bitcoin returns. Bitcoin posted an annual return of -5.7% last year, falling well short of expectations. As a result, Strategy—which has pursued a near ‘all-in’ approach to Bitcoin—now faces a double burden, with both asset value and its share price under pressure. Strategy currently holds about 672,497 bitcoins, equivalent to roughly 3.2% of total Bitcoin supply. However, the market increasingly argues that such massive holdings are turning into ‘concentration risk’ rather than a strength. In fact, Strategy’s market capitalization is about $46 billion, well below the value of its Bitcoin holdings (about $59 billion). This suggests market participants are applying a steep discount to the company’s valuation to reflect Bitcoin price volatility, its leverage structure, governance risks, and other factors. In the very near term, if Bitcoin prices fall further or volatility increases, there is growing concern that Strategy’s shares could again show a leveraged effect—declining more than spot Bitcoin. In particular, during Bitcoin pullbacks, corporate value can deteriorate rapidly, likely reinforcing investors’ risk-off sentiment. Over the medium term, the possibility of exclusion from MSCI indexes could become a serious burden for Strategy. MSCI is reviewing a plan to classify companies whose digital-asset holdings exceed 50% of total assets as ‘funds’; if Strategy breaches that threshold, it could be removed from major indexes. In that case, passive outflows and institutional selling pressure could occur simultaneously, raising the likelihood that structural downward pressure will be imposed on the share price, according to the analysis. MSCI’s final decision is scheduled for Jan. 15. Over the long term, more fundamental questions are also being raised about Strategy’s business model itself. A structure in which corporate value depends excessively on Bitcoin price appreciation without improvement in the core business is viewed as severely undermining sustainability in a prolonged Bitcoin downturn or range-bound market. With Bitcoin allocation excessively high, the current structure is considered highly vulnerable to tighter regulation, changes in accounting standards, and shifts in index-inclusion criteria—raising the likelihood that long-term risks could become a persistent feature. Experts believe it will not be easy for Strategy to break out of a negative trajectory of near-term volatility expansion → medium-term outflow pressure → long-term revalidation of its business model. The market is also warning that Strategy may no longer be a beneficiary of a ‘Bitcoin leveraged play,’ but could instead become a representative case in which risks are amplified during a Bitcoin downcycle.

As U.S. airstrikes on Venezuela and the sudden arrest of President Nicolás Maduro are being interpreted as a military and geopolitical warning message squarely aimed at China, concerns are rapidly growing that the global struggle for dominance could escalate into an uncontrollable phase of military confrontation beyond a mere regime-change operation in Latin America. On the 3rd (local time), Reuters and the UK’s Guardian said the U.S. invasion of Venezuela and the ouster of its government effectively shattered the taboo against ‘armed intervention’ in the international order, arguing that this could, paradoxically, increase the likelihood that China will move to invade Taiwan. The assessment is that U.S.-China frictions—previously centered on trade, tariffs and technological primacy—have reached a dangerous turning point that could push the rivalry into a stage of outright military confrontation. Reuters noted that the episode could sharply weaken the international ‘deterrence norms’ that have constrained China and Russia. It warned in particular that “if aggressive military intervention is accepted as precedent, the threshold for armed invasion could fall markedly in other regions, including Taiwan.” This could act as a фактор that spreads acute uncertainty and fear across global financial and commodities markets in the very near term. Given China’s deep involvement in key strategic assets across South America—Venezuelan oil, Peruvian ports, Bolivian lithium, Brazilian soybeans and Chilean copper—Washington’s action is being read as an attempt to directly block China’s global resources and supply-chain strategy, not merely a regional intervention. Analysts say it is a clear signal that U.S.-China tensions are expanding from economics → diplomacy → military → a war for resource control. Geoffrey Robertson, a UK international law expert and former judge at a UN war crimes tribunal, told the Guardian: “The most obvious result of this invasion is that China has gained a rationale and an opportunity to invade Taiwan,” adding that “in an international environment that has effectively tolerated Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this may be the most advantageous time for China.” At a press conference, President Donald Trump said U.S. oil companies would enter Venezuela to expand crude output, with the U.S. military playing a physical role—comments interpreted as an explicit declaration of a new hegemonic strategy that fuses resource acquisition with military intervention. Markets are describing it as one of the most aggressive examples of resource-driven military intervention since the Cold War. Venezuela holds 303 billion barrels—about 17% of the world’s proven oil reserves—and China is its largest importer, bringing in more than 600,000 barrels a day, as well as its largest creditor with roughly $10 billion in claims. If the U.S. takes control of Venezuela and directly intervenes in its oil exports and the structure for repaying loans to China, it could be a drastic move that simultaneously threatens China’s energy security and financial interests. Experts say they cannot rule out a worst-case scenario in which, in the very near term, international oil prices surge and global equities plunge; in the medium term, the risk of U.S.-China clashes over resources, finance and military power becomes structurally entrenched; and in the long term, the likelihood of multipolar military disputes—including across the Taiwan Strait—becomes a persistent reality. Trump’s remark that “we have gone beyond the Monroe Doctrine” and that “U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again” is also being taken by markets as a declaration that the U.S. will prioritize power politics over international norms. Analysts say this could severely undermine the predictability of the global order and, over time, seriously destabilize the world economy and the security environment.

U.S. President Donald Trump has warned that he could move to raise tariffs if India continues purchasing Russian crude oil, fueling concerns that significant uncertainty is spreading across the global energy and trade order. According to Watcher Guru on the 5th (local time), President Trump publicly pressured India, saying, "If you don’t stop importing Russian crude, I will raise trade tariffs." Going beyond a mere diplomatic remark, this immediately rattled markets by signaling the possibility of trade retaliation directly targeting major emerging economies. In particular, reports that the U.S. government is pushing legislation that would allow tariffs to be imposed on countries buying Russian crude have prompted assessments that energy trade is entering a phase of being explicitly repurposed as a geopolitical sanctions tool. A U.S. government official also said, "We plan to submit to Congress a bill granting the U.S. president the authority to impose tariffs on countries that import Russian crude," further increasing the likelihood of policy implementation. Markets widely see that if such measures materialize, in the very short term they could trigger greater volatility in international oil prices, instability in emerging-market financial markets, and a global equity risk-off move. With large energy importers such as India coming under pressure, concerns are also being raised that global crude supply chains and pricing mechanisms could be jolted sharply. Over the medium term, there is a high likelihood that U.S.-led tariff pressure could spread into broader international trade disputes. If India moves to retaliate, trade frictions between the U.S. and India could intensify, likely leading to a reshaping of global supply chains and a contraction in trade. Some also warn it could become a structural drag across energy, commodities, and emerging-market currency markets. Over the long term, the remarks are being viewed as a serious risk in that they could undermine the principle of depoliticizing international energy markets and become a turning point that entrenches crude trading as a tool of diplomacy and sanctions. This could push countries to shift energy procurement strategies in a more closed and bloc-based direction, potentially weakening the efficiency and stability of global markets at a fundamental level. Meanwhile, President Trump said about Russia and Ukraine that "an agreement will be reached before too long," but he did not present a clear roadmap, saying of any specific negotiating timeline that "there is no deadline." Markets assess that this is hard to view as a substantive signal of reduced geopolitical risk and instead a remark that prolongs uncertainty. Experts warn that it is difficult to rule out the possibility that these remarks and the policy direction could evolve from a short-term shock → medium-term trade conflict → long-term instability in the global order, and that for the time being they could exert strong downward pressure across energy, commodities, and emerging-market assets.

Usage of crypto (cryptocurrency) payment cards issued by Visa has risen sharply over the course of 2025, but skepticism is emerging over whether this pace of growth is sustainable. According to crypto-focused media outlet Cointelegraph on the 5th, Dune Analytics data show that the combined monthly net payment volume of six major crypto card products partnered with Visa expanded from $14.6 million at the start of last year to $91.3 million by year-end, posting an annual increase of about 525%. Some analysts caution, however, that this may be illusory growth driven by the early-stage market’s large base effect. The tally includes Visa-linked cards issued by payment platforms such as GnosisPay and Cypher, as well as decentralized finance (DeFi) projects including EtherFi, Avici Money, Exa App, and Moonwell. But critics note that payment volumes are excessively concentrated in a small number of top cards, making it difficult to interpret the figures as broad-based ecosystem adoption. In fact, the EtherFi card recorded the highest usage with cumulative payment volume of $55.4 million, followed by the Cypher card at $20.5 million, while the remaining cards saw limited usage. This is seen as exposing a structural vulnerability stemming from heavy reliance on specific projects. Obchakevich, a researcher in the Polygon ecosystem, said that the expanding payment volumes show crypto assets and stablecoins are beginning to play a certain role within Visa’s global payments network. Even so, the market counters that regulatory risks, a lack of genuine usage foundations, and volatility concerns leave long-term growth prospects in doubt. Meanwhile, Visa is accelerating its stablecoin push, but the four blockchains it currently supports are also in a position where business continuity could be heavily influenced by shifts in the regulatory environment and policy stances of financial authorities in each country. Market observers also interpret last month’s newly established stablecoin advisory group as having a strongly defensive character, aimed at preemptively addressing uncertainties that could arise during the integration into the regulated financial system. In the market’s view, payment experimentation may continue to expand in the short term, but over the medium term the burden of tighter regulation and profitability validation is likely to become more visible, and over the long term it will take considerable time before crypto payment cards meaningfully replace existing payment methods.

U.S. cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase has decided to temporarily suspend services based on the Argentine peso, the local currency, about a year after entering the country. According to The Block on the 4th (local time), Coinbase notified users in Argentina that it will “end trading between pesos and USDC starting January 31, 2026.” After that date, the ability to buy or sell USDC with Argentine pesos or withdraw funds to local bank accounts will be suspended. Users will have about 30 days to complete peso-based transactions before the service ends. Coinbase said the move does not mean it is exiting the business. A company representative told Bloomberg Línea that it is a planned temporary suspension “made as part of a strategic review to deliver stronger and more sustainable products,” adding that “the goal is to return in a better form after the retooling.” Unlike the peso-based service, crypto-to-crypto trading will continue to be supported. Exchanges between cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin will remain unchanged, and the company said there will be no direct impact on customer assets. Previously, on January 28, 2025, Coinbase officially entered the local market after receiving approval to register as a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) from Argentina’s National Securities Commission. At the time, Coinbase estimated that about 5 million people in Argentina use virtual assets on average each day, and stressed a market-entry strategy centered on regulatory compliance.

Most of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s security detail was reportedly killed by U.S. forces during the operation to arrest him. According to The New York Times (NYT) and other outlets on the 4th (local time), Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said in a morning televised address, “As a result of this operation, most of Maduro’s security team, along with soldiers and innocent civilians, were killed yesterday.” Padrino added, “Our armed forces categorically reject the cowardly act by the United States of kidnapping President Maduro and his wife,” condemning it as “an act that coldly killed a significant number of security personnel, soldiers, and innocent civilians.” He did not disclose an exact casualty figure. However, the NYT, citing a senior Venezuelan official, reported that the number killed in the U.S. attack the previous day was tallied at 80, including members of Maduro’s security detail and civilians. The official said the toll could rise. Padrino voiced support for Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assuming the role of acting president. He also claimed the country’s military had been mobilized nationwide to guarantee sovereignty. Earlier, members of the U.S. military’s Delta Force—tasked with the mission to arrest Maduro—raided the president’s safe house, took him into custody, and later transported him and his wife to the United States. The Delta Force operators reportedly identified Maduro’s location about three minutes after arriving at the hideout and arrested him roughly five minutes after entering the building. From the night of the 2nd through the early hours of the 3rd, U.S. forces struck targets including Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, as well as the states of Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira. The target areas reportedly included an apartment building in Catia La Mar, a low-income residential area on the western coast near Caracas airport, and some residents were said to have been killed. No U.S. military fatalities were reported in connection with the operation. The United States has indicted President Maduro on narco-terrorism charges and is proceeding with judicial steps. Over the operation, the Venezuelan government is pushing back strongly, arguing that U.S. military intervention constitutes a violation of sovereignty. Jin Young-gi, Hankyung.com reporter young71@hankyung.com

Nicolás Maduro, the president of Venezuela, who was captured by the U.S. military and is being held at a federal detention center in New York, is scheduled to appear in a U.S. courtroom for the first time on the 5th (local time). According to U.S. media outlets including The Washington Post (WP), The New York Times (NYT) and CNN on the 4th, he will appear at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan at noon Eastern time on the 5th (2 a.m. KST on the 6th) to go through arraignment proceedings, including whether he will enter a plea. His wife, Cilia Flores, who was arrested and transferred along with him, will also appear. The U.S. Department of Justice released a new indictment against Maduro the previous day. He was indicted in March 2020, during the first Trump administration, on charges including drug trafficking and money laundering as part of 'narco-terrorism.' The latest indictment supplements those allegations. The new indictment also adds family members and close associates to the list of defendants, including his wife Flores, their son, and Venezuela's interior minister Diosdado Cabello. The case will be overseen by Judge Alvin Hellerstein, 92, this year. CNN reported that Judge Hellerstein, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, has handled this matter for more than a decade. Earlier, Maduro was captured in a U.S. military raid at a safe house in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, and was flown to New York by helicopter, the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, aircraft, and helicopters. He was then formally taken into custody by the New York field division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Jin Young-gi, Hankyung.com reporter young71@hankyung.com

"U.S. has massive dollar-denominated external liabilities If tariffs lift the dollar, it could boomerang" The main talking point among economists attending the 2026 annual meeting of the American Economic Association (AEA), which opened in Philadelphia for a three-day run, was “Trump (Donald Trump, U.S. president).” Session after session examined the president’s various policies and analyzed their potential economic impact. The most closely watched session on the first day was “The Dollar After the Tariff War,” with Kenneth Rogoff, a professor at Harvard University, delivering the opening presentation. Professor Itskhoki is regarded as one of the most prominent researchers in international finance in recent years, having won the John Bates Clark Medal in 2022. Using a mathematical model, he argued that while conventional wisdom holds that raising tariff rates is the way to reduce the trade deficit, “in the case of the United States, excessively high tariff rates are not appropriate.” His argument is that because the U.S. has massive dollar-denominated external liabilities (assets held across borders), a tariff-driven rise in the dollar would increase debt-servicing costs and deepen the burden. He said that maintaining high tariff rates could reduce the trade deficit, but not as a result of a revitalized manufacturing sector—rather, it would be because “the United States becomes poorer” due to a heavier debt load. Next, Şebnem Kalemli-Özcan, a professor at Brown University, pointed out that uncertainty surrounding tariff policy is having a negative effect on the standing of the U.S. dollar. “As in the first Trump administration, if tariffs were raised again last year, the dollar should have appreciated as a result, but instead the dollar weakened,” she said, adding that “uncertainty over how tariff policy will change has driven the dollar lower.” Linda Tesar, a professor at the University of Michigan who served as a discussant for Kalemli-Özcan, echoed the point, saying, “There is ample evidence that when tariffs are imposed, demand for domestically produced goods rises and the currency appreciates.” She added, “Moreover, in times of crisis the dollar often strengthens sharply due to a flight to safety, so we need to examine why it moved in the opposite direction.” She interpreted the move as meaning that “uncertainty was large enough to overwhelm the appreciation pressure from tariffs.” Professor Tesar stressed that “you can’t look at tariffs alone,” noting that “the risk that the Mar-a-Lago Accord could be implemented, threats to the independence of the U.S. central bank (the Fed), taxation of foreign investors, rising public debt, and the unraveling of alliances, among other factors, have increased uncertainty.” Economists also noted that the ‘scale’ of tariffs will be an important variable, since the Trump administration’s initially touted nominal tariff rate of around 30% is not actually being maintained. In this regard, Kalemli-Özcan said, “Smaller tariffs have smaller effects,” adding that “research finds the impact of tariffs at around 10% would be negligible.” Philadelphia=Lee Sang-eun, correspondent selee@hankyung.com

Bitcoin (BTC) rose about $3,000 after the United States launched a military strike on Venezuela, but some analysts say sustained volatility may emerge after the oil futures market opens. According to CryptoPotato, a crypto-focused outlet, Bitcoin quickly rebounded after a short consolidation following the initial shock in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, climbing to around $91,800—its highest level since Dec. 12 last year. It later retraced slightly and is now trading around $91,300. Bitcoin has gained roughly $3,000 from its post-attack low since the U.S. assault on Venezuela began. With traditional financial markets closed over the weekend, the crypto market saw relatively active trading, with most tokens posting gains. Volatility was particularly pronounced in some tokens said to be linked to President Donald Trump. The World Liberty Financial (WLFI) token surged 14% in a single day, while the Official Trump (TRUMP) token rose about 7%, ranking among the session’s top gainers. Markets are watching for the potential expansion of volatility around the reopening of oil futures trading. As President Trump said the United States would manage Venezuela’s oil industry, some analysts are pointing to the resumption of oil futures trading on the 4th (local time) as a key inflection point. The Kobeissi Letter, a market-analysis newsletter, said, "Venezuela holds more than 300 billion barrels of oil reserves, and there is a possibility these resources could come under U.S. control." Assuming an oil price of $57 per barrel, the total value of the reserves would be about $17.3 trillion. The Kobeissi Letter added, "Even if the crude were sold at roughly half the market price, it would still amount to about $8.7 trillion—exceeding the gross domestic product (GDP) of every country except China and the United States." It also warned that "most people do not recognize how dramatically this has changed the global order," adding that "additional volatility is inevitable in financial markets, particularly after the oil market opens."

An analysis suggests that Bitcoin (BTC) long-term holders have shifted into a net-buying phase, easing the sell-side overhang that had been a key source of downside pressure on the market throughout the year. According to CoinDesk, a digital-asset (cryptocurrency) media outlet, long-term holders (Long-term Holder·LTH) who have held Bitcoin for at least 155 days were net buyers of about 33,000 Bitcoin (BTC) over the past 30 days. It is the first time since July that long-term holders have shown net accumulation. According to data from on-chain analytics firm Checkonchain, the shift to net buying is largely driven by investors who bought Bitcoin over the past six months being reclassified as long-term holders. As the inflow of these new long-term holders has outpaced the distribution volumes of existing long-term holders, a net-increase structure has formed. This year, selling by long-term holders has been cited as one of the biggest sources of selling pressure in the Bitcoin market. In fact, during the recent correction, long-term holders sold more than 1 million Bitcoin, marking the largest selling pressure from this cohort since 2019. This selling corresponds to the third long-term-holder distribution phase in the current cycle. The first was in March 2024, when Bitcoin reached $73,000 and about 700,000 coins were sold. The second was in November of the same year, when Bitcoin hit $100,000, releasing more than 750,000 Bitcoin into the market.

An analysis suggests that Bitcoin (BTC) long-term holders have shifted into a net-buying phase, easing sell-side overhang that had acted as a major source of downside pressure on the market throughout this year. According to CoinDesk, a digital-asset (cryptocurrency) news outlet, long-term holders (Long-term Holder·LTH) who have held Bitcoin for at least 155 days recorded net purchases of about 33,000 Bitcoin (BTC) over the past 30 days. This is the first time since July that long-term holders have shown a net accumulation trend. Data from on-chain analytics firm Checkonchain indicate that this turn to net buying is largely driven by investors who purchased Bitcoin over the past six months now rolling into the long-term holder cohort. The inflow rate of these new long-term holders is said to have exceeded the distribution supply from existing long-term holders, forming a net increase structure. This year, selling by long-term holders has been cited as one of the biggest sources of sell-side pressure in the Bitcoin market. In the latest correction, long-term holders sold more than 1 million Bitcoin, marking the largest sell-side pressure from this cohort since 2019. This sell-off represents the third long-term holder distribution phase in the current cycle. The first was in March 2024, when Bitcoin reached $73,000 and about 700,000 were sold. The second was in November of the same year, when Bitcoin hit $100,000 and more than 750,000 Bitcoin were released into the market. The outlet reported, "Given that it takes 155 days to be classified as a long-term holder, buy-side capital that flowed in over recent months is now being incorporated into the long-term holder cohort, changing the supply-demand structure," adding that this "suggests the burden of long-term holder selling on the market is gradually weakening."

Altcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are increasingly being launched in the United States, but analysts say it will be difficult for them to replicate the growth trajectory of Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs. According to crypto media outlet The Block on the 1st (local time), Ben Slavin, global head of ETFs at BNY Mellon, assessed the altcoin ETF market, saying, "The pace of launches is accelerating, and we are seeing some investor demand." However, he projected that "unlike Bitcoin ETFs, which hold about 7% of Bitcoin’s total circulating supply, it will not be easy for altcoin ETFs to scale to that level." He explained that altcoin ETFs tend to react sensitively to market price moves. Slavin added, "In the short term, altcoin ETFs could see repeated inflows and outflows depending on price fluctuations," but said that "over the long term, investor interest could gradually broaden." In this context, Monica Long, president of Ripple Labs, underscored that the crypto ETF market remains in its early stages. She noted that "more than 40 crypto ETFs were launched last year, but their share of the U.S. ETF market is still negligible." She continued, "As adoption of crypto ETFs expands, corporate and institutional participation in the market could be pulled forward," adding that "interest is growing—particularly among large companies—in treasury strategies using digital assets and in investing in tokenized assets."