On January 15, 2026, the time dimension dispute surrounding Bitcoin was brought to the forefront by two iconic figures. On one side was former BitMEX CEO Arthur Hayes, who bet that by 2026, U.S. dollar liquidity would significantly expand, leading him to be bullish on Bitcoin; on the other side was Michael Saylor, who insisted on measuring Bitcoin's success or failure over a period of at least four years, publicly denying any price predictions based on ten weeks or ten months. Against this backdrop of divergence, the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF recorded a net inflow of approximately $838.82 million in a single day, while in Europe, Bitwise launched seven cryptocurrency ETPs on Nasdaq Stockholm all at once, synchronizing the expansion of institutional channels with the accelerated influx of funds. On one end of the market, there was anxiety over short-term volatility and a rush to capitalize on macro liquidity windows, while on the other end, Bitcoin was viewed as a core reserve asset on corporate balance sheets, creating a long-term value narrative. These two time perspectives collided on the same asset, shaping the rhythm of the upcoming cycle.
From the Beige Book to the Interest Rate Storm: The Divergence of Liquidity Expectations
The latest Beige Book from the Federal Reserve shows signs of economic activity rebounding across various regions in the U.S., with overall warm signals in business orders and employment expectations. Such signals are typically interpreted by the market as indicating potential room for future monetary policy easing or even liquidity release. Although the Fed has not provided a clear path for easing, the risk asset market has begun to look for possibilities of a "turnaround" on the margins of the data, with expectations of renewed liquidity expansion around 2026 starting to heat up, echoing the time window described by Hayes. In stark contrast, the Bank of Korea is considering a significant interest rate hike of 200–300 basis points to stabilize its currency, defending the exchange rate and capital flows through a tighter monetary environment, thus showcasing a completely different policy orientation within the same global cycle.
In this macro-divergent landscape, Bitcoin is increasingly viewed by more funds as a common battlefield with both hedging and arbitrage properties. On one hand, it is used to hedge against tail risks from errors in single fiat currency policies; on the other hand, the interest rate and exchange rate differentials arising from misaligned rhythms between different currency regions provide space for speculative funds to utilize Bitcoin as a global liquid asset to build cross-market trading structures. The expectations of macro liquidity are not a single-direction expansion but rather a tug-of-war between the potential for easing in the U.S. and tightening in some emerging economies, with crypto assets represented by Bitcoin becoming the price outlet in this complex game.
Hayes' 2026 Bet and the Liquidity Chain
On January 15, Arthur Hayes reiterated his judgment: by 2026, dollar-level liquidity will significantly increase, and Bitcoin will benefit from this round of expansion as a high-beta risk asset. He did not provide a specific price target but focused on the core transmission chain of "liquidity—risk asset valuation—Bitcoin demand." For Hayes, what truly drives the market is not a single narrative but the combined effects of central bank balance sheet expansion and market leverage rotation leading to valuation repricing.
When the monetary environment turns to easing, the first to be reassessed is the entire risk asset pool: from U.S. stocks to high-yield bonds, and then to crypto assets, the decline in discount rates and reduction in funding costs will elevate the imagination of future cash flows and growth. For assets like Bitcoin that do not have traditional cash flows, liquidity expansion manifests in two directions: first, over-the-counter funds are more willing to pay for volatility, leveraging through futures, options, and structured products to amplify exposure; second, institutions that were previously constrained by compliance and liquidity restrictions begin to increase their holdings with a strategic allocation approach after loosening on both policy and product fronts, and the increase in marginal buying will be quickly amplified in assets with limited supply.
This macro bet is often reflected in trading levels before the data itself materializes. Expectations surrounding the 2026 window will prompt some funds to position themselves early, increasing their positions even before policy signals are fully clarified, thus allowing price volatility to preemptively reflect expectations. Every statement related to liquidity and every economic data release can be magnified by the market as a node to "falsify or confirm Hayes' roadmap," driving short-term volatility. When prices trend under expectation-driven movements, the macro narrative is then viewed as an "explanation framework already validated by the market," attracting more followers and forming a typical self-reinforcing narrative cycle.
Saylor's Slow Variables: Ten-Week Anxiety and Four-Year Perspective
In contrast to Hayes' emphasis on the liquidity window, Michael Saylor publicly reiterated his consistent stance on the same day—judging Bitcoin based on ten-week or ten-month volatility is a "directional error." He emphasized that a reasonable cycle for assessing Bitcoin's success or failure is over four years, viewing it as a cross-cycle asset rather than a short-term trading target. In Saylor's framework, Bitcoin is not a speculative tool for a single quarter but a core reserve asset on corporate balance sheets to combat currency devaluation and traverse multiple macro cycles.
Behind this logic is his reorganization of time value and accounting structure. By incorporating Bitcoin into corporate books, he attempts to transform the volatility that belongs to individual investors' wallets into a long-term asset revaluation for companies, allowing short-term price fluctuations to be "muted" in quarterly reports and absorbing volatility noise from a multi-year perspective. Compared to high-frequency traders chasing trends on a ten-week basis, Saylor emphasizes the emotional ailment of "the market is too anxious": when more funds attempt to capture all swings in a short time, prices will experience excessive rises and falls in emotional resonance, accelerating bull-bear transitions while obscuring true long-term value.
In this sense, the high-frequency entry and exit of short-term funds are not only a result but also a cause. While amplifying volatility, they provide opportunities for participants like Saylor, who can extend their time perspective, to accumulate positions during deep corrections. In a bull market, the optimism of a ten-week perspective is amplified into "if you don't buy now, you'll miss out"; conversely, during corrections, the same ten-week perspective can be transformed into pessimism about "whether Bitcoin has already failed." Saylor's slow variable narrative is a counter-response to this decision-making ensnared by short cycles.
ETF Capital Inflow and ETP Expansion: Dual Acceleration of Institutional Channels
Beyond the macro and time dimension debates, the flow of funds provides a more tangible answer. According to data from Jinse Finance, the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF saw a single-day net inflow of approximately $838.82 million in mid-January. This scale not only reflects the appeal of compliant products to traditional funds but also indicates that even in an environment of heightened volatility, a significant amount of incremental funds still choose to allocate Bitcoin through ETF channels. For institutions and high-net-worth individuals accustomed to participating in the market through brokerage accounts and funds, these products are more operationally feasible in terms of custody, compliance, and tax handling compared to direct holdings.
At the same time, the compliant supply in the European market is also expanding synchronously. On January 14, Bitwise launched seven cryptocurrency ETPs on Nasdaq Stockholm, further enriching the toolbox for local investors to directly access crypto assets at the exchange level. Compared to U.S. spot ETFs, the compliance framework and market structure of European ETPs differ, but essentially, they lower the barriers for traditional funds to enter the crypto market, making Bitcoin's "financialized exterior" more complete.
These products provide a real landing vehicle for the "liquidity-driven market" described by Hayes: when central bank balance sheets expand and funding costs decline, the most direct manifestation is the inflow of risk assets through channels like ETFs and ETPs; on the other hand, they also provide tools and scenarios for Saylor's advocated "long-term allocation" narrative, allowing institutional investors who cannot directly hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets to still build long-term exposure through compliant products. Liquidity and time converge on ETFs and ETPs: in the short term, these products amplify the pull of incremental funds on prices; in the long term, they slowly embed Bitcoin into the infrastructure of global asset allocation.
On One Side, a License Rush; On the Other, Rug Pull Doubts
If we view ETFs and ETPs as the superstructure of Bitcoin's "institutionalization," then the establishment of payment and compliance infrastructure is laying the foundation for this building. Over the past year, Alchemy Pay has successively obtained key licenses in multiple jurisdictions, including Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, and Hong Kong, and has accumulated compliance authorizations in over ten states in the U.S., gradually opening up payment and capital inflow channels between fiat and crypto assets. This infrastructure does not directly determine Bitcoin's price but quietly changes the friction costs of funds entering and exiting the market, allowing more ordinary users and merchants to access crypto assets in familiar financial and payment environments.
In contrast to the continuously expanding license map, the other end of the market still frequently witnesses speculation and moral hazards. The dramatic price fluctuations and rug pull doubts surrounding NYC Token remind us once again: even as the regulatory framework accelerates its construction, the speculative impulses of retail investors and the profit-seeking nature of project parties do not automatically disappear. New narratives, ambiguous information disclosures, and the amplification effects of social media can still push a token to the forefront in a short time, only to quickly leave latecomers with significant losses.
In this reality where compliance progress coexists with chaos, both long-term and short-term narratives are vying for the attention of the same batch of new entrants. Some users are attracted by the symbols of "regular troops" such as licenses, ETFs, and ETPs, leaning towards establishing a more robust Bitcoin exposure through compliant channels; others are drawn in by the wealth stories of high-volatility tokens, focusing their attention on more explosive but also less transparent risks. Bitcoin's position on this spectrum is influenced by macro and institutional forces, and it is inevitably entangled with various high-risk assets appearing in the same space, with long-term value narratives and short-term speculative logics ebbing and flowing within the same ecosystem.
Making Choices on the Timeline: The Next Act for Bitcoin
Returning to the debate between Hayes and Saylor, we can see that the two seemingly opposing positions are not mutually exclusive in the current macro and funding environment but rather represent different rhythms on the same timeline. Hayes bets that by 2026, the expansion of dollar liquidity will push Bitcoin to a new height through valuation repricing, which is a tactical judgment regarding the macro window for the next two to three years; Saylor insists on a holding period of at least four years, viewing Bitcoin within the context of cross-cycle balance sheet reconstruction, which is a strategic choice regarding time and volatility. Both point to the same premise—that over a sufficiently long time, Bitcoin will be continuously absorbed by the mainstream financial system in some form.
For individual investors, the more critical question is not which side to choose but rather to first identify their own time dimension and risk tolerance, and then decide which narrative to use as a basis for decision-making. If one uses ten-week or ten-month price curves to make structural judgments, it is easy to lose direction amid macro noise and emotional volatility, abandoning long-term risk compensation to avoid short-term drawdowns; conversely, if one emphasizes "victory in four years or more" while completely ignoring their own liquidity needs and psychological limits, they may be forced to reduce positions at the most unfavorable moments due to cash flow pressures in real life.
As the regulatory framework becomes clearer, the institutional channels such as ETFs and ETPs improve, and infrastructure like Alchemy Pay enhances the payment and capital inflow scenarios, Bitcoin is slowly moving away from its pure "emotional speculative market" state. In the future, it may increasingly resemble an asset priced by both liquidity and time: in the short term, central bank policies, macro data, and capital inflows and outflows will continue to dominate volatility; in the long term, the key to determining its ultimate position will be whether it can traverse multiple policy cycles and secure a place on more balance sheets. At this current juncture, the real question that needs to be answered is which segment of the Bitcoin cycle each participant is willing to bind their life timeline to.
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。
