In late January, according to Eastern Standard Time, the Danish pension fund Akademiker Pension announced its complete withdrawal from the U.S. Treasury market, sparking discussions on global asset pricing. According to public information, the fund still held about $100 million in U.S. Treasury exposure at the end of December this year. Following this announcement, the U.S. dollar index DXY was briefly pressured down to 98.21, while U.S. natural gas futures surged 27% in a single day to $3.941 per million British thermal units under the same macro sentiment. On one hand, the sovereign credit of U.S. Treasuries, seen as the global "risk-free rate anchor," is being publicly questioned by traditional conservative institutions; on the other hand, long-term funds like pensions are being forced to seek more diversified asset holdings due to liability constraints and yield pressures. This seemingly "small-scale" reduction of $100 million reflects a new crack in the narrative of U.S. dollar credit and poses a question to all market participants: When sovereign credit is no longer viewed as absolutely safe, to what extent will the chain of global capital repricing turn its attention to alternative assets, including crypto assets?
Danish Pension's Turnaround: A Rare Signal from the Withdrawal from U.S. Treasuries
Akademiker Pension is a Danish occupational pension fund aimed at highly educated individuals, characterized by long liability durations and conservative risk preferences. It has long focused on core asset allocations such as government bonds from developed countries, investment-grade bonds, and high-rated stocks. From this identity, it emphasizes cash flow stability and sovereign credit backing in asset selection rather than short-term speculative gains. Therefore, any public "exit statement" regarding assets is often seen as a structural change in the understanding of underlying risks. The announcement to completely withdraw from the U.S. Treasury market revolves around the approximately $100 million in U.S. Treasury holdings as of the end of December. While this absolute scale is not large in the global bond market, it represents a strategic shift from "whether to continue viewing U.S. Treasuries as core assets" rather than a simple tactical adjustment based on yield curve shapes or trading prices.
In explaining the reasons, the fund's Chief Investment Officer directly stated that the U.S. "is basically no longer a good credit risk." This statement points to not a single event but a combination of factors, including a continuously expanding fiscal deficit, a high debt-to-GDP ratio, repeated farcical debt ceiling negotiations, and increased policy uncertainty under domestic political polarization. For pensions, which rely on duration matching and cash flow stability, these variables combined mean that the foundation of the "risk-free rate" is beginning to shake. In contrast, over the past few years, some European institutions have managed risks more gently by shortening the duration of U.S. Treasuries and slightly reducing allocation ratios, with few making a high-profile announcement like Akademiker Pension's complete exit from the U.S. Treasury market. Thus, this event carries significant symbolic meaning in discourse.
The Resonance Signal of the Dollar Index Decline and Commodity Volatility
● Price and Sentiment: According to data from a single source, amid the intertwining of the pension fund's exit from U.S. Treasuries and macro concerns, the DXY dollar index was once pressured down to 98.21, marking a significant pullback from previous highs and reflecting a clear increase in the market's short-term risk compensation requirements for dollar assets.
● Commodity Volatility: At the same time, U.S. natural gas futures surged 27% in a single day, reaching $3.941 per million British thermal units, which is a historically rare large single-day increase. This combination of "energy commodities surging + dollar index retreating" reflects the high sensitivity of commodities to inflation repricing, supply disruptions, and safe-haven demand.
● Expectation Chain: Under the expectation of U.S. Treasury sell-offs, the market is concerned about rising long-term interest rates and nominal financing costs while reassessing inflation paths and monetary policy space, thus prompting funds to reposition between currencies and commodities. Some funds may choose to reduce their dollar asset holdings and increase physical commodities or derivatives closely related to real assets, but this linkage is more reflective of expectation games rather than linear causality.
● Causal Prudence: It is important to emphasize that Akademiker Pension's $100 million exit from U.S. Treasuries itself is unlikely to directly influence the DXY or natural gas futures movements in terms of magnitude. A more reasonable explanation is that its decision and market price changes are both constrained by the same macro narrative, namely rising concerns about the sustainability of U.S. fiscal and monetary policies. Therefore, when analyzing the chain of "U.S. Treasury sell-off—inflation repricing—dollar and commodity volatility," it is essential to carefully define causal boundaries and avoid simplifying complex macro phenomena into direct results of a single institution's actions.
● Asset Linkage Pattern: In an environment of increased dollar volatility, the correlation between traditional risk assets (U.S. stocks, credit bonds, emerging market assets) and safe-haven assets (gold, certain commodities, some developed country government bonds) is also dynamically adjusting. A weaker dollar typically benefits dollar-denominated risk assets and commodities, but when this weakness is interpreted as credit concerns rather than easing expectations, some funds may choose to further increase their safe-haven positions. This misalignment lays the groundwork for the potential role change of "alternative assets"—including crypto assets—in global portfolios.
The Blank in Sovereign Credit Gaps: Where Will Funds Go?
From the perspective of asset-liability matching for long-term liability institutions like pensions, their core constraint is to ensure that pension expenditures can be paid on time for decades to come while maintaining real purchasing power amid inflation and long-cycle economic fluctuations. This means that in asset allocation, they must continuously seek new balance points between "credit safety" and "long-term returns." Once U.S. Treasuries, previously viewed as the safest and longest-duration assets, begin to be labeled as "credit uncertain," even if the probability of default remains very low, the tolerance of regulatory and internal risk control models for their weight will be passively adjusted downwards, thus creating a gap in the portfolio that must be refilled.
In the current global market environment, U.S. Treasuries still offer relatively attractive nominal yields, but when considering inflation, fiscal trajectories, and potential risk premiums, their cost-effectiveness is no longer an overwhelming advantage. Eurozone government bonds generally yield lower than U.S. Treasuries but are seen by some investors as having value in diversifying political risk; high-rated corporate bonds provide slightly higher spreads than sovereign debt while bearing some credit risk; gold has been re-evaluated in recent years as a long-term hedge against currency flooding and geopolitical conflicts; and certain commodities, driven not only by supply and demand fundamentals but also playing a role as allocation tools in structural inflation expectations. In contrast, no single asset class can fully fill the functional gap left by the "weakened U.S. Treasuries."
Coupled with recent downgrades in sovereign credit ratings, frequent geopolitical conflicts, and the increasing use of financial sanctions, more institutions are beginning to actively consider: "If some dollar assets carry tail risks of being frozen or having limited liquidity on political or financial levels, does the definition of asset safety need to be updated?" This proactive diversification of dollar risks does not necessarily mean directly buying large amounts of digital assets but rather constructing a broad spectrum covering physical assets, private equity, infrastructure investments, and various forms of digital assets, thereby reducing reliance on a single sovereign credit through more diversified sources of risk.
Can Crypto Assets Fill the Gap? From Macro Narrative to Real Constraints
Looking back at the past few rounds of global macro turmoil, mainstream digital assets like Bitcoin have oscillated between the narratives of "digital gold" and "high beta risk assets." In times of extreme monetary easing and liquidity flooding, they often exhibit high pro-cyclicality alongside growth assets like tech stocks, with price elasticity far exceeding that of traditional assets; during certain geopolitical crises, tightening capital controls, or rising expectations of currency devaluation, Bitcoin has been viewed by some market participants as a cross-border value storage tool, with its price performance sometimes aligning more closely with gold. This constant switching of roles reflects that the market's pricing framework for these assets has not yet fully unified, but the point that they are "highly correlated with macro liquidity and sovereign credit expectations" is increasingly accepted by more investors.
However, for traditional large institutions like pensions and sovereign funds, even if they recognize the potential role of digital assets in long-term portfolios, the constraints in practical operations remain very prominent. On the compliance front, most jurisdictions lack clear regulatory frameworks or impose proportional limits on pensions directly holding Bitcoin and other digital assets; in terms of custody, meeting strict tiered authorization, cold storage security audits, and disaster recovery requirements is a challenge that both traditional custodians and emerging crypto custody institutions are exploring; in accounting treatment, existing standards still have disputes over impairment recognition, valuation methods, and financial statement disclosures for highly volatile assets, which limits the speed and scale of institutional direct positions.
In this context, the visible path is more about indirectly accessing digital asset exposure through intermediary tools. For example, some public funds and family offices prefer to subscribe to public or private fund products built around Bitcoin and Ethereum, or to gain exposure through regulated futures contracts, on-exchange ETFs, and equity in related mining companies and infrastructure firms, wrapping volatility within familiar legal and accounting frameworks. Historically, there have been a few public cases showing that some institutions have introduced such indirect exposures in the process of overall asset diversification, but this has not yet become mainstream.
Therefore, when analyzing the relationship between the Danish pension's sale of U.S. Treasuries and crypto assets, a more prudent statement would be: there is a certain resonance in macro narratives between the two—namely, a reflection on U.S. dollar credit and a rising interest in non-traditional assets—but there is a lack of falsifiable direct causal chains. Currently, there is no evidence that "selling U.S. Treasuries equals buying digital assets" is being systematically executed; a more reasonable understanding is that such events provide an indirect long-term hypothesis favorable to the future position of digital assets in institutional portfolios, but we are far from a stage where a single event drives a trend-driven bull market.
The Misalignment Game Between Whales and Institutions: How On-Chain Funds Price Sovereign Risk
Observing recent on-chain data and off-market flows in the crypto market, it can be seen that large addresses, miners, and market-making institutions exhibit a certain "structural caution" in their fund flows. Some large addresses that have held Bitcoin for a long time choose to slightly increase their holdings during price corrections, demonstrating typical left-side absorption characteristics; on the miner side, some mining entities slow down their selling pace during price pressure periods to maintain inventory in anticipation of future price rebounds; in the off-market, market makers' quotes and inventory management are more adjusted around liquidity needs and volatility expectations, without exhibiting "safe-haven bulk buying" behavior directly corresponding to a single sovereign credit event. This pattern indicates that while on-chain and off-market professional funds are highly sensitive to macro changes, they do not make directional bets based on the allocation actions of a single pension fund.
Compared to traditional institutions that need to be accountable to boards, regulators, and the public, the greatest advantage of on-chain funds lies in their mobility and short decision-making chains. In the face of changes in sovereign credit expectations, they can instantly adjust risk exposures through derivatives, cross-chain bridges, and multiple trading platforms without undergoing lengthy compliance approvals and asset reallocation processes. This also means that in the game of "who can trade sovereign credit expectations first," more flexible on-chain capital often reacts earlier, while traditional institutions are forced to lag behind within compliance and risk control frameworks. However, precisely because of this misalignment, the influence of these two types of entities on price discovery is also difficult to simply add together, but rather affects the market at different rhythms.
Concerns about U.S. dollar credit may also indirectly feedback into the prices of Bitcoin and Ethereum through the form of "on-chain dollars." On-chain tokens priced in dollars play a key role in cross-border payments, transaction settlements, and DeFi liquidity provision. When discussions about tail risks such as U.S. financial sanctions and account freezes heat up, some offshore entities may prefer to diversify their holdings, spreading risks across different issuers and chains. As the circulation structure of these "on-chain dollars" undergoes slight adjustments, upstream funding demand, interest rate levels, and hedging needs will have a transmission effect on the pricing of mainstream assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, all such deductions are based on statistical correlations between macro logic and on-chain data, rather than direct identification of trading entities.
It is important to note that the currently available on-chain monitoring and off-market transaction data cannot accurately label "a specific buy order comes from a particular pension fund or specific institutional decision." Any attempt to directly correlate Akademiker Pension's reduction in U.S. Treasuries with crypto buying during a certain period lacks verifiable evidence. The on-chain and off-market data sources referenced in this analysis are more used to characterize overall funding behavior rather than to prove a one-to-one mapping relationship between the two.
From a Pension Fund to Global Pricing: The Long-Cycle Position of Crypto Assets
Returning to the event of Denmark's Akademiker Pension exiting U.S. Treasuries, its direct funding scale is far from sufficient to shake the foundations of the U.S. Treasury market, but on a narrative level, it has opened a symbolic crack: even a pension fund known for its stability has begun to publicly question the U.S. as a "good credit risk," marking a loosening of the myth of U.S. dollar credit. For global asset allocation, this action appears more like a visual representation of a long-term trend—de-dollarization and asset diversification have gradually permeated specific investment portfolios from policy debates.
It must be repeatedly emphasized that what we can clearly see now is that various institutions are structurally weakening their reliance on single dollar assets and expanding alternative asset allocations, yet there is no sufficient evidence to support the linear logic of "selling U.S. Treasuries equals buying digital assets." Simplifying the complex repricing of sovereign credit into a short-term benefit for a specific asset class easily overlooks the institutional constraints, liquidity conditions, and changes in risk preferences in the intermediate links.
For participants in the crypto market, a more feasible strategic perspective is to continuously track the rhythm misalignment between sovereign credit events and crypto fund flows, rather than betting that a particular political or macro news event will directly ignite a bull market. When pensions, sovereign funds, and other slow variables gradually reconstruct their portfolios over a few years, while on-chain funds and crypto-native institutions complete pricing within weeks or even days, this rhythm difference will manifest in the market as multiple rounds of "front-running—digesting—re-narrating" cycles.
Looking ahead, if more pension funds and sovereign funds publicly weaken their allocation weights in U.S. Treasuries or broader dollar assets, while major markets open clearer pathways for digital assets in custody, compliance reviews, accounting standards, and product structures, then crypto assets may gradually transition from their current marginal allocation to being an "optional" component in large portfolios, and even evolve into one of the "necessary options" to address sovereign credit uncertainties in certain scenarios. However, before this process truly materializes, the market needs not emotional amplification of a single event, but rather calm tracking of institutional evolution, regulatory implementation, and funding behavior.
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。
