Will Bitcoin Collapse? Two Giants Hold the Answer

-

MicroStrategy and BlackRock: How Two Giants Are Shaping Bitcoin’s Future

※ This article is being published in its current version first and will be updated in two days to match the final Daily Crypto Times (DCT) format.

The Bitcoin market has moved beyond a purely speculative phase and is now entering a structural growth stage led by corporations and institutions. At the center of this shift stand two major players:

  • MicroStrategy — the first publicly listed company to adopt Bitcoin as a core corporate treasury asset
  • BlackRock — the world’s largest asset manager and a key gateway connecting Bitcoin to the regulated financial system

Recently, BlackRock publicly delivered a striking message on CNBC:

“We’re still just at the beginning of this market.”

This is not just an opinion. It is a statement backed by action: seven consecutive days of Bitcoin ETF inflows, over $200 million in a single day, and $744 billion in inflows over 12 months.

In this article, we review the strategies of these two companies and explore how far they can go in offsetting Bitcoin’s structural risks.

1) MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin Holdings and Strategic Purpose

MicroStrategy currently holds around 802,823 BTC, making it the largest Bitcoin holder among publicly traded companies. Recently, it continued its aggressive accumulation strategy by purchasing an additional 34,164 BTC through the issuance of STRC preferred stock.

The company’s purpose for holding Bitcoin is clear:

  • Adopting Bitcoin as a core corporate treasury asset
  • Hedging inflation and securing a long-term store of value
  • Making a long-term bet on corporate value appreciation
  • Maintaining an indefinite HODL strategy rather than short-term trading

In other words, MicroStrategy views Bitcoin as a strategic asset to be accumulated over the long term, with the company’s future effectively tied to it.

2) BlackRock’s Bitcoin Holdings and Strategic Purpose

BlackRock does not hold Bitcoin primarily for its own balance sheet. Instead, it holds Bitcoin through the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) ETF as a custodian of client assets.

  • Large-scale inflows from institutional and retail investors via the ETF
  • Expanded access to Bitcoin through regulated financial products
  • Over $1 billion in weekly net inflows even amid market volatility
  • Transparent price discovery through the ETF structure

Recently, BlackRock delivered the following message on CNBC:

“We are still at the very beginning of this market.”

This shows that BlackRock is not merely “allowing” Bitcoin—it is actively accelerating the market.

BlackRock’s core objective is to provide safe, regulated access to Bitcoin for its clients, effectively connecting Bitcoin to the mainstream financial system.

3) Bitcoin’s Potential Collapse Scenarios and the Mitigating Role of These Two Giants

Over the past 15 years, Bitcoin has demonstrated remarkable resilience. However, concerns remain about its structural vulnerabilities and long-term risks. Four representative collapse scenarios are often discussed:

① Scenario 1: Bitcoin Fails to Double in Price Every Halving Cycle — Security Collapse Risk

Bitcoin’s security relies on miner rewards. If price appreciation fails to offset the reduction in block rewards after each halving, miner profitability may deteriorate, weakening the Proof-of-Work (PoW) security model.

→ How the two companies may mitigate this risk

  • MicroStrategy’s long-term BTC accumulation strengthens price stability and demand foundations.
  • BlackRock’s ETF channels continuous institutional capital into Bitcoin, helping to support the downside.

② Scenario 2: Mining Costs Exceed Revenue for an Extended Period — Miner Exit and Collusion Risk

If mining remains unprofitable for too long, miners may exit the network, and the remaining few could collude, threatening decentralization.

→ How the two companies may mitigate this risk

  • MicroStrategy’s HODL strategy reinforces long-term confidence in Bitcoin’s value.
  • BlackRock’s ETF increases liquidity and contributes to market stability.

③ Scenario 3: Block Rewards Approach Zero After 2040 — Transaction Processing Shutdown Risk

Once block rewards become negligible, miners may not be able to sustain operations on transaction fees alone, potentially leading to a halt in new transaction processing.

→ How the two companies may mitigate this risk

  • Growing institutional capital inflows can strengthen upward price pressure.
  • Higher prices can improve the economic foundation of the fee market.

④ Scenario 4: Lack of Economic Incentives for Full Node Operation — Simultaneous Security and Decentralization Risk

Full nodes are essential for verifying and securing the network, yet they receive no direct financial reward. If node operators lose the incentive to run full nodes, both security and decentralization could deteriorate.

→ How the two companies may mitigate this risk

  • The market confidence, price stability, and institutional demand reinforced by these two companies can strengthen the long-term motivation to operate full nodes.
  • They cannot solve this problem directly, but they can contribute to indirect systemic stability.

Conclusion: Two Giants, Two Paths, One Shared Impact on Bitcoin’s Future

MicroStrategy and BlackRock have different objectives and strategies, yet both play a decisive role in the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

MicroStrategy has reinforced Bitcoin’s philosophical and strategic value, helping to establish it as an asset that corporations can hold for the long term.

BlackRock has connected Bitcoin to the regulated financial system, creating a structure through which institutional capital can flow into Bitcoin safely. Its recent strong statements effectively serve as a formal declaration from the traditional financial world that the Bitcoin market is just getting started.

In the end, MicroStrategy acts as Bitcoin’s ideological and strategic leader, while BlackRock serves as Bitcoin’s institutional gateway. Through different paths, both are helping to drive Bitcoin’s long-term growth.

Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.

If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.

댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

Ethereum’s Quiet Takeover: How Stablecoins and Tokenized Assets Are Rewriting Global Finance

-
이미지
Ethereum’s Quiet Takeover: How Stablecoins and Tokenized Assets Are Rewriting Global Finance In 2026, the global financial system is undergoing a profound transformation—quiet on the surface, but seismic underneath. At the center of this shift is Ethereum . Once viewed simply as a smart‑contract platform, Ethereum has now become the settlement and liquidity backbone of global finance, reshaping the very structure of how money and assets move. How Ethereum Became the Foundation of Global Finance Stablecoin payments and real‑world asset tokenization (RWA) are expanding faster than ever. What’s striking is that this movement is no longer led by crypto startups. Instead, Visa, Stripe, PayPal, JPMorgan, BlackRock, and Fidelity —the world’s largest financial institutions—are building new financial infrastructure directly on Ethereum. Recent on‑chain data highlights the scale of this shift: Tokenized funds: 31,300 holders Tokenized equities: 21,000 holders Tokenized commodities: 116,...
자세한 내용 보기

The Real Reason the CLARITY Act Stalled: A USDC Yield War Between Coinbase and the Banks

-
이미지
3-Point Summary The CLARITY Act stalled not because of regulators, but due to internal industry conflict. The core battle centers on whether stablecoins like USDC should be allowed to generate yield. Coinbase’s opposition to a yield ban significantly weakened political momentum for the bill. The CLARITY Act stalled because the industry itself couldn’t agree on who controls the economics of digital dollars. 50-Second Shorts Video '" style="cursor: pointer; position: relative; width: 100%; aspect-ratio: 1/1; border-radius: 8px; overflow: hidden;"> Watch the 50-second video to understand why the CLARITY Act stalled before diving into the full analysis below. Why the CLARITY Act Stalled: Not Regulation, but an Internal War 1) What the CLARITY Act Was Trying to Do The CLARITY Act is ...
자세한 내용 보기

비트코인은 자산, 이더리움은 인프라: 기관이 다시 짜는 글로벌 금융의 판도

-
이미지
비트코인과 이더리움—같은 기관 채택, 완전히 다른 두 개의 트랙 기관들의 암호자산 채택 속도가 눈에 띄게 빨라지고 있다. 하지만 이 흐름 속에서 비트코인과 이더리움이 맡고 있는 역할은 근본적으로 다르다. 비트코인은 기관의 포트폴리오에 편입되는 ‘보유 자산’ 으로 자리 잡고 있고, 이더리움은 글로벌 금융 시스템이 다시 구축되는 ‘운영 인프라’ 로 기능하고 있다. 이 둘은 경쟁 관계가 아니라, 새로운 금융 아키텍처를 구성하는 두 개의 기둥이다. 1. 비트코인: 기관이 ‘보유하는 자산’ 최근 블랙록이 단 10거래일 만에 17,645 BTC(약 11억 6천만 달러) 를 매수한 사실은 시장의 시선을 사로잡았다. 이는 채굴자들이 생산하는 속도보다 더 빠르게 비트코인을 흡수하는 수준이다. 기관들이 비트코인을 반드시 보유해야 하는 자산 으로 인식하고 있다는 강력한 신호다. 비트코인이 기관 포트폴리오에서 차지하는 의미는 명확하다. ETF 운영을 위한 재고 확보 블랙록의 IBIT 현물 ETF는 투자자 수요를 충족하기 위해 대량의 BTC를 보유해야 한다. 기관 고객에게 제공하는 규제된 비트코인 접근성 연기금, 보험사, 국부펀드 등은 직접 보관 리스크 없이 비트코인에 노출되기를 원한다. 디지털 금으로서의 포지셔닝 래리 핑크는 비트코인을 글로벌 거시 자산, 가치 저장 수단, 인플레이션 헤지로 규정해 왔다. 장기적 희소성에 대한 선제적 대응 블랙록의 공격적 매수는 희소 자산을 조기에 확보하려는 전형적인 기관 전략이다. 결국 비트코인은 금고에 보관되는 자산 , 즉 디지털 금이다. 기관은 비트코인을 ‘운영’하지 않는다. 보유한다. 2. 이더리움: 금융 자산이 실제로 ‘움직이는 인프라’ 이더리움은 완전히 다른 질문에 답한다. “금융 자산은 어디에서 발행되고, 이동하고, 결제되고, 운영될 것인가?” 기관들은 ETH를 단순히 사들이는 것이 아니라, 이더리움 위에 금융 시스템을 구축하고 있다. 대표적인 사례는 다음과 같다. JP Morgan — Onyx, JPM Co...
자세한 내용 보기