In the September 28, 2026 edition of the "Golden Morning News," two seemingly ordinary overnight updates were placed on the same page: on one side, Bloomberg senior analyst Mike McGlone once again pulled out nearly a decade's worth of data, asserting that the Market Vector Digital Asset 100 Index, weighted primarily by Bitcoin, has been "essentially flat" since 2017, while the Nasdaq 100 Index has steadily risen, thereby classifying Bitcoin and other crypto assets as "underperforming assets" and suggesting that "the peak may have passed"; on the other side, the CEO of publicly listed company Strive sent out opposing signals—stating that the company would not only continue buying Bitcoin but also "increase the leverage a bit more," choosing to buy against this decade-long financial report at the institutional level. One side advocates for reducing exposure from a long-term relative performance comparison of MVDA and NDX, while the other increases its Bitcoin exposure on the balance sheet, making its decision to buy more public to shareholders and the market. These two almost opposing positions were presented simultaneously alongside macro and policy news, directly focusing the debate on one question: Is Bitcoin's weakness relative to leading U.S. tech stocks over the past decade evidence of a cyclical end, or the starting point of the next revaluation? How these institutional divergences will rewrite the risk preferences, capital flows, and pricing frameworks of Bitcoin and related crypto assets in the upcoming trades.

McGlone: Reducing Bitcoin Signal

From McGlone's perspective, Bitcoin is no longer a "revolutionary asset" but a category of assets that can be coldly graded. He framed the narrative using risk and portfolio management, categorizing nearly a decade's worth of crypto assets as "underperforming": the Market Vector Digital Asset 100 Index (MVDA), which represents the overall market capitalization, has approximately two-thirds of its weight from Bitcoin, yet it has been essentially flat since 2017, while the Nasdaq 100 Index (NDX) has steadily risen during the same period. This comparison holds very direct meaning for institutions accustomed to looking at relative returns and Sharpe ratios—holding Bitcoin has not yielded sustained excess returns but has consumed valuable risk budgets and drawdown tolerances, representing a real opportunity cost on the books.

In such a narrative, Bitcoin's role in traditional institutional asset allocation would revert from "a core exposure that must be held" to "a dispensable satellite position." For a portfolio manager, when asked by superiors where "the performance drag has been over the past decade," the relative return curve comparing MVDA to NDX would suffice as a reason to reduce crypto weights and redirect risk budgets back to mainstream equity assets like U.S. stocks: reducing Bitcoin holdings can significantly improve portfolio drawdown trajectories and performance attribution without substantially altering nominal positions. As long as McGlone's quantitative narrative is continuously reiterated within institutions, it will marginally compress the allocation funds flowing towards Bitcoin and related crypto assets, redirecting more incremental capital towards stronger-performing tech stock indices. This slow variable revaluation is becoming the true steering wheel contested by both bulls and bears.

Strive Increases Bitcoin Against the Trend

While McGlone used a decade of statistical retrospection to persuade institutions to "reduce exposure to Bitcoin," a publicly listed company pushed its chips forward at the same table. The CEO of Strive publicly stated that the company would continue to buy Bitcoin and even "increase the leverage a bit more." Unlike social media calls, every asset allocation adjustment made by a listed company must be realized in financial reports and shareholder communications, meaning Strive is not expressing an opinion but instead betting against the macro narrative that "the crypto peak has passed," representing a standard "real money bullish bet."

What "increasing leverage" specifically refers to—whether raising the percentage of Bitcoin holdings or further leveraging existing exposure—has not been articulated by Strive, but regardless of the form, its financial implications are similar: the company's future profit fluctuations and stock price performance will be more sensitively aligned with Bitcoin prices, redirecting risk budgets that could have been anchored to tech stocks or other assets more onto this single macro target. In the absence of detailed data from the market, such actions are often broadly categorized as "an increase in corporate risk appetite"—despite quantitative models repeatedly advising to "stay away from Bitcoin," there are still publicly listed companies willing to increase their risk exposure linked to Bitcoin, which itself undermines the pessimistic narrative of "institutions systematically withdrawing," adding a hedging clue to the mid-term sentiment bottom and capital imagination for Bitcoin, and emerging as a key variable to observe whether risk appetite is truly exhausted.

Bull-Bear Tug of War: Divergence Between Institutions and Retail Investors

In the same morning update, McGlone presented statistical graphs of MVDA being "essentially flat" since 2017 and NDX steadily rising, categorizing Bitcoin as "an underperforming asset over the past decade," and consequently providing a conclusion for reduction in exposure that "the peak may have passed"; on the other hand, the CEO of companies like Strive, responsible to shareholders, openly stated a commitment to continue buying, even "increasing the leverage a bit more." The media presenting both in parallel, alongside macro and policy news, essentially informs the market that within traditional finance, the crypto narrative has fractured from "a consensus bearish/bullish" into open confrontation centered around balance sheets and back-testing data.

This narrative divergence directly reflects on the structural dynamics of the market. The long-term flat trend of general crypto assets at the MVDA level indicates that the "opportunity cost" relative to tech stocks is increasing, causing traditional funds that prioritize capital efficiency to tend to shorten their holding periods and reduce directional exposure, participating more through short-term contracts, options, and event-driven strategies, which weakens the overall trend sense of the market, making movements more dependent on single-point news and macro data triggers. As this cautious capital reduces its Bitcoin duration exposure, those crypto-native institutions, long-term believers, and retail investors still willing to withstand higher volatility become, in turn, passive liquidity providers: they are picking up the chips that are being thrown off in a short-sighted market structure with higher leverage, and will become the main counterparty for future price differential games when macro trends reverse and institutions re-enter.

Price Chain from Bitcoin to Ethereum

If McGlone's perspective gains prevalence in traditional asset allocation, Bitcoin will either be regarded as "digital gold" or treated as a "high beta tech stock substitute," and the valuation premiums of both narratives will be compressed. The MVDA index has about two-thirds of its weight from Bitcoin, remaining "essentially flat" since 2017, while the NDX continues to rise; within institutional risk control frameworks, this will be interpreted as: both carrying growth risks, it is better to directly buy leading tech stocks. This disadvantage of relative return reversely impacts the entire basket of crypto assets—Bitcoin, as the "mother asset," sees its risk budget reduced, and the allocation space for Ethereum naturally contracts, transforming ETH from "levered BTC β" into an asset that "requires a higher opportunity cost for additional volatility," with high beta altcoins further marginalized, as more funds prefer to remain in tech stocks or on-chain dollar cash positions rather than continuing to speculate on long-tail assets.

Conversely, if company buying like Strive's gradually increases, Bitcoin's role in traditional portfolios will undergo a qualitative change: from "a statistically underperforming speculative asset" to a primary asset that can be included in corporate balance sheets, carrying a "corporate asset allocation target premium." As a publicly listed company, Strive preemptively releases signals to the market of "continuing purchases, and raising leverage," if more similar entities follow suit, institutions will lean towards viewing Bitcoin as a structural position rather than a tactical trade, and its weight in MVDA will instead become attractive, allowing Ethereum to seize the opportunity to take on "growth and application narrative" offensive risk budgets, with high beta altcoins experiencing more intense relative strength rotation when sentiments warm up. In this tug-of-war of narratives, more mature funds will not simply go "all in on one story" but will dynamically manage overall volatility and drawdown spaces by adjusting the proportions of on-chain dollar-anchored assets and altering the weights of BTC/ETH with smaller caps. The relative performance of Bitcoin to NDX, as well as the changes in the overall basket of market capitalization, will become the most critical observation window in this pricing chain.

Outcome Undetermined: What Signals Should We Watch?

McGlone derived the valuation narrative of "underperforming over the past decade, peak may have passed" from the divergence of MVDA and NDX since 2017, while Strive's CEO simultaneously announced "continuing to buy, and raising leverage," providing an opposite bet with a real balance sheet in the absence of specific size disclosures. These two form a direct conflict between "model backtest" and "cash flow entry," and Bitcoin's pricing power swings between traditional institutions prioritizing risk control and companies bold enough to concentrate their bets. Golden Finance places this buying dynamic on the same level as macro and policy news, indicating that the market is amplifying buy signals at the corporate level, but as of September 28, 2026, the prices and public capital flows have not given evidence that either side "has won." For trading and allocation, the clear checklist to watch going forward is: first, observe whether more traditional institutions publicly reference "ten years of underperformance" as a reason to reduce their exposure; second, see if more listed companies follow suit in increasing Bitcoin holdings on their balance sheets; third, continuously compare NDX with Bitcoin-weighted MVDA for relative strength; and fourth, track the migration directions between on-chain capital, off-exchange ETFs, and corporate balance sheet positions, because what truly determines the direction of this bull-bear contest is not the height of a single viewpoint, but the sustained inclination of these cross-market capital flows over time.

Join our community, discuss together, and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

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。