In the Eastern Eight Time Zone this week, ARK Invest released a report on the outlook for cryptocurrency and macroeconomics aimed at 2026, with founder and CEO Cathie Wood once again placing Bitcoin at the center of the narrative. In this report, she continued her long-term optimism regarding technological innovation and risk assets, with one of her core judgments being: Bitcoin has a very low correlation with mainstream asset classes such as stocks, bonds, and gold, and its supply is locked by mathematical rules, making it likely to become a new pivot for institutional portfolio diversification. At the same time, the report also directly addresses another underlying issue—cryptofinancial innovations represented by interest-bearing stablecoins are seen by some large banks as a threat to the survival of the traditional deposit system, leading to a significant increase in regulatory and banking system tensions. Thus, an increasingly unavoidable main question emerges: will crypto assets be gradually accepted and incorporated into the mainstream financial system over the next few years, or will they continue to face resistance amid regulatory pushback and the interests of established players?
From Margins to Core Allocation: The Narrative Flip of Bitcoin
In this outlook, Cathie Wood emphasized that Bitcoin has a very low correlation with traditional major asset classes such as stocks, bonds, and gold, which is the starting point for her judgment of its strategic allocation value. For institutional investors, correlation signifies "resonance risk" under systemic shocks, while low-correlation assets provide sources of returns that do not move in complete synchrony within the same macro environment, helping to mitigate the volatility dominated by a single asset or factor in the entire portfolio. ARK's view is that, in the context of a phase of elevated correlation between traditional stocks and bonds, and gold being constrained by multiple macro and monetary policy factors, Bitcoin—an asset with limited attachment to existing asset price logic—introduces an irreplaceable dimension of diversification to the portfolio.
Another cornerstone supporting this judgment is Bitcoin's almost "anti-human" design on the supply side. The new supply of Bitcoin strictly follows predetermined mathematical rules, with a total supply cap, block generation speed, and halving rhythm all hard-coded, meaning no single institution, central bank, or corporate management can arbitrarily expand the supply. This rigid constraint constructs the narrative of "digital scarcity": in a fiat currency world where the monetary base can rapidly expand due to crises, elections, or policy shifts, an asset with a transparent supply path, a publicly verifiable cap, provides a distinctly different option for hedging against monetary and policy uncertainty. ARK emphasizes that Bitcoin's scarcity is not just a story, but stems from the institutional attributes of code and consensus.
From a portfolio management perspective, Bitcoin's role is also slowly but surely shifting. In the early days, it was more viewed as a high-volatility, speculative trading target, with almost no relation to "long-term allocation." As market capitalization expanded, market depth improved, and more institutions participated, Bitcoin gradually became included in the "alternative asset" basket, alongside venture capital, real estate, and commodities, used to widen the risk-return boundary of the portfolio. In this process, ARK advocates for a deliberately extended time dimension perspective: they are more concerned with the medium to long-term trends of technological diffusion, network effects, and capital flows into the traditional financial system, rather than price fluctuations triggered by a single halving or quarterly macro data. The positioning of Bitcoin in the report is closer to a cross-cycle diversification tool rather than a "get-rich-quick ticket" for the next market cycle.
Wall Street's Tentative Embrace: Public Chains Packaged as "Infrastructure"
Beyond assets, ARK also focused on the economic significance of public chain technology itself. They view crypto assets and public chains as an innovative platform that enhances long-term GDP growth and reduces transaction and trust costs, although the report does not provide specific growth figures, the directional judgment is quite clear: programmable open networks will reconstruct the underlying logic of data and value transfer. From corporate operations to financial services, any processes involving accounting, clearing, reconciliation, and contract execution may find lower-cost, more verifiable implementations on-chain.
In specific scenarios, ARK depicts a gradual rather than a revolutionary path. Onboarding businesses onto the chain means that business processes, supply chain management, data rights confirmation, and auditing can be partially or fully migrated to an immutable ledger, reducing the human and time costs of intermediary layers. The streamlining of financial intermediaries points to areas such as settlement networks, cross-border payments, and securities issuance and custody, where the introduction of smart contracts and on-chain accounting is expected to lower the cost accumulation and information asymmetry brought by multiple intermediaries. For traditional financial institutions and real enterprises, crypto and public chains are more packaged as a "new generation of infrastructure" rather than a single speculative target.
In reality, some Wall Street institutions have already quietly laid out related infrastructure: some are involved in custody and trading services, some are exploring on-chain settlement networks, and others are participating in tokenized asset pilots, but the overall attitude remains cautious. They acknowledge the potential of technology and efficiency dividends on one hand, while on the other hand, they are concerned about regulatory uncertainties and the risk of their own businesses being "disintermediated." The tension pointed out by ARK is that a consensus on "efficiency" has almost formed at the technical level, but once these technologies are tied to specific asset prices, capital regulations, and compliance responsibilities, optimism quickly gives way to caution or even resistance. This disconnection reflects the current state of Wall Street's attitude towards crypto and public chains.
The Banks' Fear: Defensive Measures Under the Shadow of $6 Trillion in Deposits
If Wall Street's attitude towards public chains is still "testing the waters with an abacus," then the response of senior executives at large American banks to interest-bearing stablecoins is closer to "survival anxiety." According to a single source, Brian Moynihan, CEO of a large American bank, warned that interest-bearing stablecoins could siphon off up to $6 trillion in deposits from the U.S. banking system. The context of this statement is crucial: in a backdrop of fluctuating interest rate environments, tightening regulatory capital constraints, and intensified deposit competition, bank executives suddenly realize that if there is a crypto form of "deposit-like" tool that can provide attractive yields and has convenient on-chain transfer capabilities, then the low-cost deposit pool that traditional banks rely on could be systematically drained in the coming years.
The challenge posed by interest-bearing stablecoins to the banking profit model is not merely a matter of comparing interest rates. The core logic of traditional banks is to use relatively low-cost liabilities—namely low-interest deposits—to support asset-side lending and investment portfolios, earning interest spreads, fees, and various derivative service revenues. If regulations allow, or if the market spontaneously promotes a transparent, on-chain operating interest-bearing tool that can provide yields close to or above those of money market funds, then depositors will have a channel to bypass banks and directly connect with yield-generating assets. In such a structure, the importance of banks in the "deposit-lending" chain is diminished, and their pricing power and bargaining ability decline simultaneously.
In stark contrast, ARK emphasizes in the report the "incremental value" of crypto assets and related financial innovations: higher transparency, lower execution costs, and more open market access. For them, tools like interest-bearing stablecoins are "lubricants" that allow capital to flow more efficiently on a global scale. For the management of large banks, this lubricant could very well wash away decades of accumulated business moats. Thus, the conflict between technological efficiency and existing interest structures far exceeds the question of "which technology is more advanced," evolving into a real game about who controls deposits, who leads credit creation, and who holds bargaining power in the financial system.
Policy Gateways Loosen: Testing Signals from West Virginia
On the regulatory front, there has been a subtle misalignment between federal and local rhythms. According to a single source, a bill proposed in West Virginia allows the state treasury to invest a portion of its funds in digital assets, while setting a very high entry threshold—the market capitalization must exceed $750 billion. This figure itself indicates that the policy designers have a very clear target: they are aiming at leading assets like Bitcoin, rather than the numerous long-tail tokens with varying risks.
This high market capitalization threshold is, in fact, a regulatory signal of "selective opening." For state-level finances, which are typically conservative funds, entering the crypto space is itself a political and risk control decision that requires multiple justifications. Opening the door only to assets with large market capitalizations means that between returns and risks, they prefer to hedge volatility and compliance pressures with liquidity and market maturity. This also indirectly confirms a trend: Bitcoin is transitioning from an "alternative speculative target" to an "asset that can be discussed or even attempted for allocation by conservative institutions."
More importantly, the symbolic significance of local financial institutions venturing into crypto far exceeds the scale of funds from a single state. For other state governments, local pensions, and even some sovereign-related entities, once a pioneer completes a pilot within the institutional framework, it provides a political and compliance reference for subsequent imitation. Meanwhile, at the federal level, there remains a high degree of caution regarding stablecoin regulation, trading platform compliance, and anti-money laundering reviews, with tightening trends emerging in some areas. Thus, the parallel situation of gradual local openings and strict federal controls constitutes another layer of competition: on one end, there is "voting with feet" driven by fiscal pressures and economic transformation needs, while on the other end, there is a heightened sensitivity to systemic risks and monetary sovereignty, both of which will continue to pull against each other in the coming years.
Voices of Doubt and Faith: The Divided Echo of ARK's Expectations
Surrounding this 2026 outlook, the market is not entirely in praise. On social media, doubts about ARK and Cathie Wood's past predictive record have never truly disappeared. Some users have sorted through her high optimism on growth stocks, innovative technologies, and crypto assets, followed by subsequent pullbacks, to argue that her style is "too optimistic for the times"; others point out that these doubts have not formed rigorous systematic rebuttals, but rather resemble emotional post-mortems, rather than statistical tests based on complete data and samples. This noisy environment, where support coexists with skepticism, precisely reflects the polarized perception of the ARK brand in the market.
Driving this polarization is ARK's consistently distinct high-risk, high-growth investment style. A large allocation to disruptive technologies and early-stage business models, combined with a high optimism about the prospects of crypto assets, naturally amplifies the controversy surrounding their views. For some investors, ARK's bullish stance feels like a "high β emotional factor": when they see Cathie Wood once again making bold bets on Bitcoin or public chains in the news, they unhesitatingly view this as a short-term emotional amplifier, while maintaining a significantly conservative actual position. This "verbal high leverage, low leverage in accounts" behavior has been frequently observed in the past two major crypto cycles.
Therefore, a necessary premise when reading this report is to deliberately distinguish between the macro analogies, emotional expressions, and hard data within the report. ARK's analysis of technological diffusion, asset correlation, and institutional constraints provides a useful framework for understanding the medium to long-term landscape; however, when the discourse shifts towards imaginative analogies, extremely optimistic assumptions, or fierce criticisms of the traditional system, investors need to actively pull back to their own risk budgets and portfolio structures, rather than passively raising expectations in the fervor of the discourse. Faith can drive holding, but asset pricing and risk management ultimately must return to cold, hard data tables and constraints.
Standing at the Doorstep of 2026: The Dual-Track Future of Crypto Assets
Overall, regarding the crypto and macro landscape for 2026, two intertwined tracks are forming. On one track, core crypto assets like Bitcoin, due to their very low correlation with stocks, bonds, and gold, as well as their scarcity locked by mathematical rules, are increasingly viewed by more institutions as allocation tools rather than mere speculative chips. From local fiscal experiments like those in West Virginia to the infrastructure explorations of some Wall Street institutions, Bitcoin is gradually moving towards a path of becoming a "standard allocation" in portfolios.
On another track, crypto financial innovations represented by interest-bearing stablecoins are launching structural shocks to the traditional banking system. From warnings about potentially "siphoning off $6 trillion in deposits" to bank executives lobbying for regulatory policies and defensive measures, this thread points to a zero-sum tension within the financial system: every dollar flowing into high-yield on-chain tools signifies a weakening of the banks' liabilities and a detrimental impact on their profit models, which in turn heightens regulatory concerns and desires for control over systemic risks.
Between these two tracks lies the future landscape woven by local explorers like West Virginia, Wall Street's technological experimenters, and the defenders of large banks. Local finances are gradually opening up under the pressures of fiscal constraints and innovation demands, Wall Street is weighing the pursuit of fees and innovation dividends against the avoidance of regulatory risks, while large banks are striving to curb potential "on-chain runs" from the perspective of deposit safety and profitability.
For ordinary investors, the real challenge is not whether to "believe or deny ARK," but how to dynamically calibrate their positions and risks in an environment where long-term logic and short-term games coexist: while recognizing the direction of technological and institutional innovation, it is essential to reserve enough safety margins for high-volatility, high-uncertainty assets; during the observation of the regulatory and banking game process, one should avoid overly amplifying or compressing the valuation imagination of crypto assets due to emotional narratives. The year 2026 has not yet arrived, but the answers to how crypto and traditional finance can coexist, conflict, and compromise are gradually becoming apparent in every policy trial, technological implementation, and backlash of interests happening now.
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。
