[비즈한국] Nowadays, the concerns of crypto investors are converging into one. Bitcoin prices have been halved, and there is no clear reason for the sharp decline. Nevertheless, there is growing anticipation that “isn't it an opportunity once it gets integrated into the mainstream financial system?”
Bithumb’s Bitcoin mis-issuance incident amplified this anxiety. Although it was described as a simple mistake, the fact that investors witnessed tens of trillions of won worth of non-existent Bitcoin being created and then disappearing is not something to be taken lightly. Bitcoin far exceeding the actual holdings was created in the exchange's internal ledger, and that quantity was displayed as is on actual trading screens for a short period. As the internal circulation, which is usually in the tens of thousands, suddenly swelled to hundreds of thousands, some users raised questions, asking, “Doesn't this mean money can effectively be copied inside the exchange?” The question, “What exactly is the number in my account?” spread throughout the entire market.
In centralized exchanges, trades are made based on internal database numbers, not the actual movement of coins on the blockchain. While speed and convenience are excellent, discrepancies between physical assets and the ledger can occur if system errors or internal control failures occur. What would be unimaginable in institutional finance has become a reality in the virtual asset market.
This anxiety was amplified by the recent sharp drop in Bitcoin prices. Bitcoin slid from $80,000 to under $70,000 in a few days before rebounding sharply. The problem is not the volatility itself, but the fact that there is no clear reason explaining this decline. Interest rates, regulations, and geopolitical risks are all possible reasons, but not definitive ones. What left the market was not the price, but conviction.
As distrust in exchange systems and questions about the raison d'etre of virtual assets were raised, discussions on mainstream institutional integration are naturally emerging again. Indeed, virtual assets are rapidly shifting from being targets of prohibition to targets of management. Spot ETFs, institutional custody, and discussions on regulatory frameworks prove this. The possibility that virtual assets will disappear completely has become much lower than in the past.
However, a misconception arises here: the belief that institutional integration is a signal for price increases. The essence of the institutional system is stability, not appreciation. It is the role of the mainstream system to reduce volatility, increase predictability, and eliminate excessive leverage and mania. In other words, institutional integration is closer to meaning that the 'wild growth' of virtual assets is over. Stories of sudden 10x or 20x increases in the past are incompatible with the institutional system. What remains is only the yield of a financial product.
For this to be an opportunity now, one must have the temporal leeway to endure one or two cycles and be able to bet on survival, not skyrocketing prices. Above all, one must be able to control their portfolio weight. Virtual assets are still high-risk assets and are only meaningful when approached as an option in a portfolio. Institutional integration is not a safety net, but a change in character.
The questions raised by the Bithumb incident and the Bitcoin crash are, “How much can you trust an exchange?” and “Why should you hold this asset?” If you jump in just looking at the price without an answer to these questions, now may be a trap, not an opportunity.
What is important is not “Is this the bottom?” but “Why am I holding this asset?” Institutional integration can stabilize virtual assets, but it lowers the dreams associated with them. If you can accept this fact, now might be a period to quietly build a position. If you cannot accept it, it will be the starting point of disappointment.
Virtual assets are no longer assets to blindly trust and go 'all-in' on, but they are still alive enough not to be completely ignored. Institutional integration is not a guarantee of price increases, but a minimal basis for the possibility that they will not disappear. Whether this is an opportunity or not is determined not by the market, but by the investor's attitude.