Wall Street’s Evolving Stance on Crypto: From Hostility to Embrace

Wall Street’s Evolving Stance on Crypto: From Hostility to Embrace

TL;DR

  • Wall Street went from rejecting cryptocurrencies to integrating them as a new asset class with high strategic potential.
  • The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs marked a turning point in the institutional legitimization of the crypto ecosystem—both externally and within Wall Street itself.
  • Financial adoption is growing, but it poses risks of diluting key values such as decentralization and digital sovereignty.

For years, cryptocurrencies were viewed with distrust by Wall Street. Seen as a threat to the traditional financial system, their decentralized nature, extreme volatility, and lack of regulation led to an almost unanimous rejection in institutional circles.

However, in recent times, that stance has started to shift. What used to be open resistance is now gradually turning into acceptance. Major financial firms are incorporating products linked to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The question is: What triggered this shift, and what are its real implications?

From Distrust to Strategic Interest

Wall Street’s hostility toward cryptocurrencies was not without reason. The traditional financial sector is built on principles such as traceability, control, and institutional oversight. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, emerged with a radically different approach: transactional freedom, partial anonymity, and a break from intermediaries. It’s no surprise that banks, funds, and regulatory bodies initially adopted a defensive posture.

However, several factors began to erode that position. The first was the sustained growth of the crypto ecosystem. Despite its volatility, Bitcoin established itself as an alternative store of value, and Ethereum as the foundational infrastructure for a wide range of decentralized financial applications. The second was the entry of institutional players like Fidelity, BlackRock, and Goldman Sachs, who saw digital assets as a new investment class to diversify their portfolios and attract a younger generation of clients.

Bitcoin ETF

ETF Approval: A Turning Point for Wall Street

The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States marked a profound shift in how cryptocurrencies are perceived. For the first time, the SEC gave the green light to an instrument that allows traditional investors to gain direct exposure to the price of Bitcoin without the need to custody it. This development not only granted institutional legitimacy but also opened the door to a massive influx of capital from pension funds, family offices, and financial advisors.

Wall Street is not embracing Bitcoin out of ideological conviction. It’s doing so because it sees a growing market demand and a concrete business opportunity. Asset tokenization, smart contracts, and decentralized finance are no longer viewed as disruptive threats, but as tools with the potential to revolutionize certain sectors of the current financial system. The result is a quiet transition: from criticizing to integrating, from observing to participating.

wall street post

Genuine Acceptance or Opportunistic Adaptation?

Despite the optimism surrounding this new phase, it comes with particular nuances. Institutional adoption does not necessarily imply full acceptance of the original crypto ethos. Decentralization, censorship resistance, and financial sovereignty remain uncomfortable values for the financial establishment within Wall Street. In many cases, what we’re seeing is an adaptation of crypto infrastructure to traditional regulatory frameworks, not a transformation of the system as a whole.

Moreover, this integration brings certain risks. Excessive institutionalization of cryptocurrencies could distort their original purpose, creating new mechanisms of speculation disconnected from their technological utility. The influx of institutional capital can also lead to greater market concentration, undermining one of the ecosystem’s core pillars: open and decentralized participation.

Bitcoin Wall Street Cryptocurrencies

Conclusion

Wall Street’s change in attitude toward cryptocurrencies reflects the maturity of the crypto industry and the impossibility of ignoring a phenomenon that has demonstrated resilience, innovation, and an active community. What was once seen as a passing fad is now viewed as a technological evolution with concrete implications for the financial system.

However, embracing cryptocurrencies doesn’t necessarily mean adopting their foundational principles. The real challenge will be finding a balance between integration and the preservation of core values. If the traditional financial world can adopt blockchain technology without stripping it of its essence, and if the crypto ecosystem can continue to innovate without being diluted by institutional capital, we may be witnessing a true transformation—not just another act of appropriation.

0 Shares:
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like
储备证明或一无所有:不存在中间地带 – Kraken Blog Kraken Blog
Read More

储备证明或一无所有:不存在中间地带 – Kraken Blog Kraken Blog

随着加密货币行业对储备金证明(PoR)审计透明性的关注度日益提高,Kraken很欣慰地看到业界更加重视“证明”,而非“承诺”。然而,在其他平台急于追赶的过程中,我们注意到有一些其他平台和交易所试图将简化甚至误导性的审计方法冒充为储备金证明审计。这不仅造成市场混乱,这些被吹捧为储备金证明审计的不完整做法还将削弱信任,进而破坏加速财务自由和普惠金融的共同使命。 为了向客户提供应有的透明度,整个加密货币行业必须采用严格的储备金证明审计标准。在过去一个月的混乱中,业界未能解释储备金证明审计的真正含义,而是将流程复杂化,以便在炒作中套现。 不了解储备金证明审计的实际目的和正确应用的加密货币利益相关者有可能上当受骗。现在,客户会收到误导性的、不完整的储备金证明声明,他们有可能会上当受骗,从而遭受经济损失。Kraken自愿进行了业内首次储备金证明审计,并在独立审计师的监督下,不仅核算了我们的加密货币余额,还核算了我们的客户负债,从而树立了一个合法标准。Kraken认为,储备金证明审计必须包括以下五个部分。Kraken认为,如果缺少这五项中的任何一项,就意味着有操纵结果的空间。在最基本的层面上,储备金证明审计是“资产证明”和“负债证明”的结合。缺少任何一项都不符合黄金标准,也无法为交易所的客户带来价值。简而言之,Kraken认为,评估加密货币交易所的健康状况时,需要的是“证明”,而不是“承诺”。 储备金证明由哪些部分组成? 作为一家引领行业透明度和信任度的公司,我们有责任指出那些冠以“储备金证明审计”之名但实际上缺乏严谨性的实践做法的缺点和漏洞。Kraken在首创定期储备金证明审计实践的同时,还建立了有效开展这一实践的框架。尽管我们对其他试图重新定义“储备金证明审计”的做法表示异议,但仍有机会在整个加密货币行业以去中心化的方式实现标准化并提供透明度。简单来说,Kraken认为,储备金证明审计应是“资产证明”和“负债证明”的结合,并包括增强客户信心的其他内容。缺少其中任何一个组成部分都意味着该过程不符合真正的储备金证明审计标准。 负债证明 一句话总结:交易所需要多少资产储备金证明的核心,首先是客户负债证明。如果不清楚交易所需要多少特定资产来支付客户存款,后续的组成部分就是不完整的。 为了不仅只是声明而且可以证明客户负债,Kraken聘请了独立第三方审计师,以确保客户负债声明的有效性。审计师在“负债证明”部分发挥了重要作用,确保储备金证明审计中不包含负余额,因为负余额可能是由清算的保证金头寸造成的,因此可能导致审计结果不准确。以下部分还将进一步详细讨论审计师的角色,以及通过全面的数据可用性来减少对审计师需求的潜力。 资产证明 一句话总结:交易所拥有多少资产在确定了交易所需要承担的客户负债金额,他们还必须证明自己的资产。资产应等于或超过交易所的客户负债,也就是说,交易所至少应拥有等量的特定资产,以匹配客户存款资产的负债。 恶意行为者可以很容易地随便指向一个装满加密货币的钱包,然后说这是他们的。在未经确认的情况下公布钱包地址,就相当于在一大堆钞票面前摆拍:钞票就在那里,但没有人知道谁是这堆钞票的合法拥有者。首先,没有对应签名的钱包地址毫无意义,因为无法证明对该钱包的所有权。此外,即使有证明所有权的钱包,也不足以令人信服,除非能够确保“负余额账户”未被纳入客户负债的计算(这一过程可以通过独立的第三方审计师完成)。 哈希树(Merkel树) 一句话总结:为每个客户余额分配一个唯一标识符交易所控制的每个余额都必须被分配一个唯一标识符,这种标识符可以使用相同的输入再次生成,也就是所谓的哈希值。哈希值在数学上是可重复/可验证的(并且在统计上/实际上是唯一的)。分配给每个客户余额的这些唯一标识符会被系统地成对组合,然后一起再次进行哈希运算,最终形成一棵哈希树。这个过程的最终结果,也就是最后两个哈希值最后一次进行哈希运算后的结果,被称为“Merkle根”。该值作为所有客户余额的数字指纹,使客户能够通过客户门户验证其资产是否已纳入储备金证明审计中。 独立审计师 一句话总结:第三方监督和验证如果没有审计师监督和验证储备金证明审计流程的严格标准,恶意行为者就会误导或欺骗他们的客户。例如:审计师要确保负余额账户不在审计之列,因为这些账户会人为地减少交易所应负责的负债总额。虽然审计师的参与并不能完全保证结果的准确性,但确实能起到额外增加严谨性的作用。值得强调的是,其他未使用声誉良好的独立审计师(或未向公众披露所有可验证的资产和负债)的交易所,实际上并未完成储备金证明审计。 客户门户 一句话总结:不要信任,要验证在完成所有审计工作后,客户必须能够自己独立验证他们的余额(交易所的负债)是否包含在储备金证明审计中。交易所应为客户提供访问由独立第三方托管的门户网站的途径,以便客户验证在审计中记录了他们的余额。如果没有这样的客户门户网站,客户就必须完全依赖信任,但却无法独立验证交易所和审计师在审计中包含了他们的余额。 我们认为,真正的储备金证明审计必须将数据托管在一个独立的地点。需要让客户能够验证其余额已提交给审计师。 汇总 Kraken认为,储备金证明审计应包括客户余额和钱包控制的加密证明。要被视为真正的储备金证明审计,交易所应当在审计中包括: 负债证明 资产证明 哈希树(Merkel树)…